Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Complaint Strassman – offensive language – "fuck" – interview with Rima Te Wiata breached her privacy – offensive behaviourFindings(1) Standard G2 – context – warning – AO time and classification – no uphold (2) Privacy – no private facts revealed – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of the comedy programme Strassman was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 16 May 2000. Brian Shearer complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the repeated use of the word "fuck" during the programme, and an interview with Rima Te Wiata, which he considered breached her privacy and was in bad taste due to questions asked about her sex life. TVNZ responded that the programme was intended as adult entertainment, began well after the watershed, carried an AO certificate and was preceded by a warning about strong language....

ComplaintOne News – two items – coverage of murder trial – complainant summonsed as juror – shown standing near to accused in the dock – implied supporter of accused – breach of privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – broadcasts did not maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual – current privacy principles not applicable – uphold as breach of s. 4(1)(c) OrderCosts to complainant of $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The trial in the Whangarei High Court of George Aaron Marson for murder was covered by Television New Zealand Ltd. An item on One News on Monday 28 May 2001 showed Mr Marson pleading not guilty. The same footage was used in an item reporting the jury’s guilty verdict screened on One News on 1 June. On each occasion, DA was shown standing behind the dock, about a metre away from the accused....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item featured a woman who claimed to have suffered terrible experiences while in state care in the 1960s – photo shown of the woman as a young child with five other children – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy 3 News – item reported on government’s decision to bring forward a review of alleged abuse suffered by people while in state care during the 1960s and 70s – made reference to the 60 Minutes item and the woman who alleged she had been abused – showed the same photo as contained in the 60 Minutes item – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy Findings60 Minutes and 3 News Standard 3 (privacy) – children not identifiable beyond close family and friends – did not disclose any private facts – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme informationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed about an identifiable person – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

ComplaintRadio 531 PI News – report that 20 year old Tongan man had died as a result of suicide – privacy – inaccurate FindingsPrivacy Principle (i) – highly offensive fact – father identified – no public interest – breach OrderS13(1)(d) compensation – $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A news item on 531 PI broadcast on 13 June 2000 reported that a 20 year old Tongan man, the son of an official in a named Church, had died as a result of suicide and that a service was being held for him the next day. M, the victim’s brother, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the broadcast breached his family’s privacy, by naming his father. He also pointed out that at the time of the broadcast, the Coroner had not completed a report on the death....

ComplaintHolmes – coverage of rally driver Possum Bourne’s funeral service – tribute by eight-year-old son – breach of child’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of child considered by broadcaster – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Coverage of rally driver Possum Bourne’s funeral service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 6 May 2003. The item included the tribute made by his eight-year-old son, Taylor Bourne. [2] Kevin Nicol complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the item, broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd, breached the child’s privacy....

ComplaintChannel Z – News item – arrest of man for the kidnapping of Kahurautete Durie – reported that the accused expected to have a hard time in jail – announcer expressed pleasure at that prospect – offensive, unfair and unbalanced – broadcaster upheld aspect that item failed to distinguish between fact and opinionFindingsPrinciple 1 – not offensive – no upholdPrinciple 2 – did not encourage breach of law – no upholdPrinciple 3 – accused not named – no breach of privacy – no upholdPrinciple 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdPrinciple 6 – facts sourced and distinguished from opinion – no upholdPrinciple 7 – gang spokesmen cited – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The arrest of a 54 year-old man accused of kidnapping Kahurautete Durie was reported in a news item on Channel Z broadcast at 8. 00am on 22 April 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – anonymous caller revealed that named person had visited a medical clinic – disclosed confidential medical details – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2,067 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On the afternoon of Monday 9 October 2006, the hosts on The Edge radio station stated that they had “a bit of inside goss” from an anonymous caller who had previously worked at a medical centre for two weeks. The hosts asked “are you breaking patient confidentiality here or something? ” to which the caller laughed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of I Am Innocent focused on the story of Y, a science teacher, who was accused and charged with indecently assaulting a female student (‘X’) in 2012. The charges against Y were withdrawn around August-September 2013. The episode featured interviews with Y and others, all of whom spoke supportively about him. Ms Johnson complained that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards, including that comments made during the programme about X and her mother resulted in their unfair treatment. The Authority upheld this aspect of Ms Johnson’s complaint, finding that the programme created a negative impression of X and her mother....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 98/94 Dated the 20th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C B of New Plymouth Broadcaster ENERGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED of New Plymouth I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb. It featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. Close-up footage, including a side-on view of part of her face (unblurred), revealed her demographic, gender, the length and colour of her hair, voice, profile of her nose, clothes, watch, a distinctive ring and the side of her glasses. The Authority found these features enabled identification of the interviewee beyond family and close friends. Their disclosure would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in her position, given she participated on the understanding she would not be identified. The Authority was not persuaded the defence of informed consent applied to the breach of the woman’s privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an item covering ‘an early morning street brawl’. The complainant was briefly shown in the item speaking to police at the scene of the brawl. The Authority found that while the complainant was identifiable, the item did not disclose any private information over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...