Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two hosts on George FM Breakfast asked listeners to send in the names and profiles of female users of Instagram described as ‘do-nothing bitches’. The names of two women, A and B, were submitted. The hosts went on to comment extensively on A’s profile, making inappropriate and disparaging comments about her, and also contacted A and interviewed her on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks having found breaches of the fairness and good taste and decency standards was insufficient, and also found that the broadcast breached the privacy of both women....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the song Why Won’t You Give Me Your Love breached broadcasting standards. The complaint was that the song lyrics described an ‘intention to stalk, kidnap, imprison and rape’ and the song was inappropriate to broadcast in the afternoon. The Authority determined that the song’s satirical nature and upbeat style reduced the potential for the darker tone of the lyrics to cause harm. The song was within audience expectations for the eclectic music selection of the host programme, Matinee Idle and, taking into account the context of the broadcast, the lyrics did not undermine widely shared community standards and would not have unduly harmed child listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary The fate of money belonging to Holocaust victims but deposited in Swiss bank accounts during World War II was the subject of commentary on "Aspects of Israel" broadcast on Access Radio on 29 June 1997 beginning at 11. 15am. The commentator questioned the honesty of the Swiss in dealing with the money. Mr Carson of Wellington complained to Access Radio, the broadcaster, that the remarks impugned the integrity of the Swiss and, therefore, were offensive and discriminatory. Access Radio responded that the comments related to Swiss banks and bankers, and did not refer to the Swiss as a people. Further, it considered that even if ill will was incited against those bankers who controlled the assets of Holocaust victims, it was unlikely that any of those people were in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-011:Town and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-011 PDF499. 97 KB...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of The AM Show featured an interview with Hon. Kelvin Davis regarding the Government’s scheduled series of nationwide Hui with Māori. The programme also discussed legal action taken by prisoners against the Department of Corrections over strip searches, and a short clip of comments by host Duncan Garner on this issue was included in a promo for The AM Show broadcast that evening. A complaint was made that Mr Garner’s comments in relation to the first topic amounted to racist ‘slurs’ against Māori and were dismissive of the Crown’s efforts to fulfil its Treaty obligations, and that the discussion of the second topic trivialised prisoners’ ‘serious abusive treatment’. The Authority did not uphold either aspect of the complaint....

ComplaintM2 – "One Night in New York City" – music video – theme of drug rape – portrayal of criminal sexual activity – breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 – context, including offensive language and behaviour – majority uphold Standard 2 – Guideline 2e – anti-social behaviour portrayed but not glamorised – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A music video by the band The Horrorists, entitled "One Night in New York City", was broadcast on M2 on TV2 at approximately 4. 25am on 10 February 2002. The lyrics told the story of a 15-year-old girl who visited New York City, and went home with a man she met at a nightclub. The man gave her a pill, which she took, and then she asked him what it was....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – characters who were parodies of Michael Jackson and his son moved into the neighbourhood using the last name Jefferson – local police discovered Mr Jefferson was a "rich black man" and decided to frame him for various crimes – allegedly in breach of the law and order standard Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – satirical cartoon known for making fun of societies' institutions – material intended to be humorous – did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal behaviour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the cartoon South Park was broadcast on C4 at 9pm on 14 May 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on the sentencing of convicted rapist Roger Kahui included a brief re-enactment showing actor forcing entry into victim’s home – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item made it clear to viewers that it was a re-enactment – stylised dramatisation – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item was brief – unlikely to disturb child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not relevant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for 3 News – showed a man head-butting another man – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, children’s interests, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was fleeting and inexplicit and no visible injury was shown – broadcast during Home and Away and five minutes before the news – formed part of a newsworthy story – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – contextual factors – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – footage in the promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-012:Tregurtha and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-012 PDF394. 96 KB...

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Tagata Pasifika – reported on One News investigation into criminal gangs, drugs and weapon smuggling in Samoa – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – items discussed controversial issue of public importance – only presented one perspective, that the situation in Samoa was extremely serious – viewers needed information about the gravity of the problem in a wider context and from other perspectives – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reporter accurately reported what she was told by the “Makoi boys” but under the circumstances should have questioned their reliability and made efforts to corroborate what they said – complainant’s other concerns appropriately dealt with under balance – one aspect upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – “Makoi boys” did not understand the nature of the programme or their proposed contribution – upheld – programme…...

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – 4 June report on New Zealander and Viva Palestina aid worker Nicola Enchmarch’s reaction to being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza – 5 June report on New Zealand protest marchers demonstrating against the raid – both items allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items provided a New Zealand perspective on the raid – reports did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact he considered to be inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-039 Decision No: 1998-040 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by C of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintFair Go – item about identity theft – reporter obtained driver’s licence in someone else’s name – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 referred only – no encouragement to break the law – fraud and crime elements emphasised – high public interest and educative value – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the issue of identity theft. It featured a Fair Go reporter investigating the issue by obtaining a driver’s licence in someone else’s name. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 April 2003. [2] The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had failed to refer to the "criminal" actions of the reporter in obtaining the driver’s licence....