Search Rapua

ComplaintAlly McBeal – drama – male applicants for law practice required to take off shirts – discrimination against men – sexual harassment in the workplace – inconsistent with maintenance of law and order Findings(1) Standard G13 – no discrimination or denigration – legitimate dramatic work – no uphold (2) Section 4(1)(b) – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Ally McBeal was broadcast on TV2 on 5 July 2000 at 8. 30pm. A sequence in the programme featured two women interviewing male applicants for a position in a legal practice. The applicants were asked to remove their shirts during the interview process. S Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence represented "illegal" sexual harassment of the men involved, and encouraged discrimination against men....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Benidorm – showed a man being slapped in the face by two different women – allegedly in breach of law and order, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence was slapstick humour – broadcaster exercised care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for three comedy programmes Bonkers, Benidorm and The Sunshine Girls was broadcast on TV One at 12. 27pm on Thursday 18 October 2007....

ComplaintInside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision – documentary – abortion –inaccurate statements – unbalanced – undermined New Zealand legislation FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2a – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 4 – programme balanced – no upholdStandard 5 and Guidelines 5b, 5d & 5e – mixture of fact & opinion – accurate and impartial – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Inside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision was a documentary which followed three women while they made a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Several other women, who had been through the same experience, were also interviewed on the programme. The documentary was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 28 November 2002....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Five Campbell Live items featured the complainant, Margaret Harkema, a former director of the Valley Animal Research Centre, and investigated concerns that she was using TradeMe to rehome beagles that were bred or used for testing. The Authority upheld her complaints that the programmes were unfair, misleading and breached her privacy. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, PrivacyNot Upheld: Law and OrderOrders: Section 13(1)(d) $2,000 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy; Section 16(1) $12,000 legal costs to the complainantIntroduction[1] Campbell Live carried out an investigation, spanning five separate broadcasts, into matters involving the now closed Valley Animal Research Centre (VARC), and its former director, Margaret Harkema....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a voice break on the radio music show Selectah, the presenter said, 'If you are a scooter rider, in the city, in Auckland, let me give you one piece of advice: Don't get your scooter fixed by Scootling, they charge way too much. ' MediaWorks upheld a fairness complaint from the owner of Scootling and offered him a number of options for redress including an on-air apology and free advertising. The Authority disagreed with the complainant that this action was insufficient. It also declined to uphold his complaints that the broadcast otherwise breached standards relating to law and order and accuracy. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken), Law and Order, Accuracy Introduction[1] During a voice break on a radio music show, Selectah, the presenter said: I'm waiting for my scooter guy to turn up. . ....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Hauraki Breakfast, hosts Jeremy Wells and Matt Heath discussed smoking marijuana, in relation to several National Party MPs who had recently publicly stated they had never tried it. The hosts took calls from listeners who had also never tried marijuana and asked them why they had never tried it. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast promoted and encouraged the use of marijuana. The Authority found the broadcast amounted to a comedic discussion of smoking marijuana that did not go beyond established audience expectations of Radio Hauraki, Hauraki Breakfast or the hosts. The Authority noted that humour and satire are important aspects of free speech, and found that on this occasion, there was insufficient risk of harm to justify limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary Allegations by homeowners that Fletcher Homes Ltd engaged in irregular practices with respect to the valuation and financing of new homes were the subject of a ministerial investigation, according to reports broadcast on One Network News on TV One on 26 and 27 February 1998 between 6. 00-7. 00pm. Through their solicitors, Fletcher Homes Ltd (FHL) and Residential Mortgages Ltd (RML) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reports were unfair, inaccurate, unbalanced and lacked objectivity. They also complained that TVNZ failed to respect the principles of law by broadcasting potentially prejudicial evidence prior to trial, thus raising the issue of contempt. In addition, they complained that the editing of the items distorted the facts. They asked for a full correction and apology to be published....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-106 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintOne News – item about HIV positive man facing charges of sexual offending – HIV status irrelevant to criminal allegations – broadcaster did not respect principles of law - unbalanced – impartial – unfair – broadcaster not mindful of effect on children – item caused unnecessary panic, alarm and distress FindingsStandard G5 – standard concerned with maintenance of law and order – possible breach of law beyond Authority’s jurisdiction – no uphold Standard G16 – broadcast did not cause "unnecessary" alarm – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 23 November 2000 described the court appearance of a North Shore teacher who faced 20 charges in relation to sex offences allegedly committed against six boys. The news item described the man, whose name had been suppressed, as having tested HIV positive....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by Duncan Garner and Judith Collins on The AM Show breached the balance and law and order standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Authority found that the comments identified did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, so the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not breach the law and order standard as it did not contain any content which would have encouraged audiences to break the law. Not Upheld: Balance, Law and Order...

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....

Paula Rose declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A panel segment during Larry Williams Drive discussed a recent High Court action brought by Phillip Smith against the Department of Corrections (Corrections), in which Mr Smith argued that his freedom of expression had been breached by Corrections staff preventing him from wearing his toupee. At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Mr Williams stated: ‘I say Janet, solitary confinement 24/7, dark room, with his toupee, with a little bit of waterboarding just to make it interesting’. The other panellists laughed, with one commenting, ‘You’re a hard man, Larry’....

During a segment of The AM Show, which discussed how different sections of the community had united in the wake of the Christchurch mosque attacks, host Duncan Garner said he’d like ‘the gangs’ to nominate a person to ‘look after’ the alleged attacker. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Garner’s comment breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found, upon consideration of contextual factors, including the glib nature of the comment, that while it was discordant with the tone of the broadcast and may have caused offence to some, it did not go beyond audience expectations of Mr Garner or The AM Show. The Authority concluded that any restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unreasonable.   Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with Sir Eion Edgar – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Monday 22 February 2010, the host interviewed Sir Eion Edgar as he had recently been named Senior New Zealander of the Year....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a 10-year-old child who had taken his mother’s car for a joyride – child interviewed while sitting in the driver’s seat – showed child sitting in the driver’s seat of the car alone and rolling down the driveway at his house – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests Findings Standards 2 (law and order) and 9 (children’s interests) – item did not encourage adult target audience to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise illegal behaviour – clearly illustrated the boy’s actions were dangerous and illegal – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the talkback programme, Overnighter, host Garry McAlpine invited listeners to call in to discuss the issues facing New Zealand in 2018, one of which was the upcoming cannabis referendum. Mr McAlpine strongly expressed his view, throughout the programme, that cannabis should be decriminalised for medicinal and recreational use. A number of callers, including the complainant, expressed their views on the subject, with some supportive of, and others opposed to, Mr McAlpine’s views. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Talkback radio is known for robust discussion, and broadcasting standards recognise that it is an opinionated environment, with hosts granted some latitude to be provocative and edgy in the interests of generating robust debate. This programme in particular featured genuine discussion on an important issue in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....