Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to determine a complaint that it was inappropriate for RNZ to use Forsyth Barr and First NZ Capital as business advisors and suppliers of business news for its 'Market Update' segment on Checkpoint. RNZ's choice of business advisors is a matter of editorial discretion rather than broadcasting standards. The complainant has previously made similar complaints and been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in future. Accordingly the Authority declined to determine the present complaint on the basis it was frivolous and vexatious. Declined to Determine: Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Allan Golden complained that Forsyth Barr and First NZ Capital were not suitable for use as business advisors and suppliers of business news on Radio New Zealand's 'Market Update' segment of Checkpoint....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 115/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BARRY MAGUIRE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary A short sequence in Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell-Out Tour showed the characters Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy) camping on Great Barrier Island. The item was broadcast on TV2 on 20 July 1999 at 10. 00pm. Robin Court complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme showed and "advocated" camping and related activities on and around property owned by the Onekokoru Trust. He said that some of the activities breached or could breach by-laws, and that the "unauthorised use" of Trust property was offensive and deeply disturbing to members of the Trust. TVNZ responded that the land it showed was not identifiable as Trust property. Accordingly, it said that the programme did not advocate anything about the merits of Trust property as a camping place....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – two items broadcast one after the other – first item reported on the re-opening of the euthanasia debate in the United Kingdom following the screening of a television documentary which showed a terminally ill man taking a lethal dose of drugs in Switzerland – second item reported on a voluntary euthanasia campaigner who had the words "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" tattooed on her chest – both items allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and children’s interests standards FindingsItem on assisted suicide Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – report was tasteful – did not endorse either position – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item preceded by warning –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News at Midday – reported on alleged immigration scam and Gerard Otimi’s appearance in court – included a graphic “Immigration Scam” – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic not inaccurate in context of whole item which referred to “alleged” scam and “charges” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – would have been clearer to phrase graphic as a question – item made it clear the scam was “alleged” and Mr Otimi was facing charges – absence of question mark did not result in Mr Otimi being treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item reported on Mr Otimi’s appearance in Court – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote…...

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed industrial dispute at Ports of Auckland – host Willie Jackson made controversial comments in support of striking workers, for example, “I hope they get aggressive down there at the wharf”, “Go and bust your pickets over some of these scabs”, and, “I am into militant action” – comments allegedly in breach of law and order and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – taken in context, the comments amounted to the host’s vehemently expressed opinion – listeners would not have taken the comments seriously – broadcast did not encourage listeners to engage in unlawful activity, taking into account clarifications and retractions – high value protest speech was engaged so upholding the complaint would unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 This headnote does not…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-147 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHERYL PHILPS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sports Tonight – reporter interviewing supermarket staff and patrons – ate a lolly from one of the bulk bins – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – light-hearted prank – viewers not encouraged to break the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sports Tonight broadcast on TV3 at 11. 15pm on 11 March 2005 featured a reporter interviewing supermarket staff and patrons about sports trivia. During the segment, the reporter ate a lolly from one of the bulk bins. Complaint [2] Stephen Ross complained to CanWest TVWorks Limited, the broadcaster, that the actions of the reporter had amounted to theft under the Crimes Act 1961. By broadcasting the item to “the easily influenced public”, he contended, CanWest had endorsed the reporter’s actions....

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – investigation of availability of ingredients needed to make methamphetamine or ‘P’ – hidden camera footage of two shopkeepers – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not list all of the ingredients needed to make ‘P’ – no recipes or techniques mentioned – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – high level of public interest in the items – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not relevant to complainant’s concerns – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcaster did not mislead or alarm viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TV2 promo – on screen graphics for TV2 promo included a hazy substance wafting up the screen – allegedly represented smoke and thus breached the Smoke Free Environment Act prohibition on promoting smoking behaviourFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – promo did not promote disrespect for the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The imagery used in on-screen graphics to identify a television channel as TV2 included a hazy substance wafting up the screen. It was broadcast frequently at various times. Complaint[2] Brandon Orlandini complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the haze shown in the TV2 promo represented smoke. That view, he said, was shared by others and many, like him, felt a "strong urge to smoke" on seeing the promo....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – footage of an assault on a man charged with child abuse – described as “street justice” – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – crime was not endorsed or glamorised – “street justice” a colloquialism – broadcaster did not condone assault – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 1 April 2005 detailed the lifting of name suppression in a prominent child abuse case. The piece contained footage of an assault on the accused that had screened previously when the name suppression order was still in effect. The voiceover stated: Last week when he appeared in court it was street justice being meted out on [the accused]....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tiger’s Tail – movie contained scene which combined sex and violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order and violence FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – guideline 10c – depiction of rape required pre-broadcast warning – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – movie did not glamorise rape, or otherwise promote or condone rape – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Tiger’s Tail was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 31 October 2010....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...