Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2011-485-840 PDF137. 27 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – discussed anniversary of massacre at Aramoana – interviewed policeman who was involved – said “fucking” twice – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority’s research suggests majority of viewers would consider “fucking” unacceptable before 8....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

ComplaintFair Go – “Fair Go Ad Awards” – presenter lampooned margarine advertisement – sexual suggestions allegedly offensive and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 – sexual innuendo oblique and inexplicit – comedy – not upheld Standard 9 – not unsuitable for children in context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The annual “Fair Go Ad Awards” included a segment during which the presenter lampooned an advertisement for margarine, which had been nominated for “worst ad”. The episode of Fair Go was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 15 October 2003. [2] Geoff New complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the parodies contained sexually suggestive material which breached standards of good taste and decency and was unsuitable for children. [3] In response, TVNZ disagreed that the programme breached broadcasting standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 16/94 Dated the 18th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by VOTERS' VOICE BINDING REFERENDUM INC. of Papakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 94/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R TUNNICLIFF of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

ComplaintSpace – music video – Massive Attack – focused on stripper – full frontal nudity – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A music video by the band Massive Attack was included as the final item on Space broadcast on TV2 on Friday 17 October 2001, between 10. 30 and midnight. The video showed a stripper going through her routine and finishing with full frontal nudity. Space is a magazine programme containing live music, music videos, and other multi-media events. [2] Mr Smits complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the strip routine containing full frontal nudity was offensively gratuitous, and in breach of the standards relating to taste and decency....

ComplaintMercury Lane – promo – reference to pubic hair – broadcast during Son of God on Good Friday at 10. 30am – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – spoken not visual reference – context – no uphold Standard 9 – children not unfamiliar with nudity – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A question to an artist about the public reaction to the portrayal of pubic hair was included in a promo for Mercury Lane, a programme about the arts. The promo was broadcast at about 10. 30am on Good Friday during the screening of the documentary Son of God, which reported the results of a scientific examination into issues raised about Jesus Christ. [2] Carole Bennett complained that the broadcast of the promo, during family viewing time, was disgusting....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-038:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-038 PDF377. 55 KB...

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Dated: 6 July 2010 Decision No:  2010-001 Complainants GILLIAN ASHURST of Canterbury MARIAN DEAN of Whanganui DR NANCY HIGGINS of Waikouaiti JANET HUTCHINSON of Hastings PETER LOVE of Featherston KAREN MCCONNOCHIE  of Auckland ROBERT PARAMO of Wellington PEOPLE FIRST NEW ZEALAND INC of Wellington MARK SHANKS of Kaitaia TREVOR SHASKEY of Gisborne G SNEATH of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD broadcasting as TV One                                   Members Peter Radich, Chair Tapu Misa Mary Anne Shanahan Leigh Pearson...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host interviewed Professor of Māori history about 21 hui selecting a ‘Māori’ flag to be flown on Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day – both host and interviewee commented that the process was a waste of time and money – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance – One News item the previous evening presented alternative viewpoints which provided balance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments reinforced negative stereotypes but did not reach threshold necessary for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments about Tino Rangatiratanga flag being one of division were clearly the host’s opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness to Māori dealt…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Summary An episode of Shortland Street, broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited, between 7. 00 and 7. 30pm on 15 May 1998, included a scene which depicted a male and a female character in bed together after sexual activity. Mr Stanton complained that as the scene portrayed an extra-marital sexual relationship, it should not have screened in peak family viewing time where it would have been watched by many younger viewers. He also claimed that Shortland Street in general contained too many storylines which involved extra-marital sexual relationships. TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint that the broadcast was offensive, unbalanced or inappropriate for its PGR timeslot. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, Mr Stanton referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item looked at the government’s rule change on foreign investment and its impact on Auckland airport shares and the share market in general – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – complaint vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 4 March 2008, reported on the share market’s turbulence after the government announced a change to foreign ownership rules preventing the sale of a major stake of Auckland International Airport shares to a Canadian pension fund. The item included interviews with Prime Minister Helen Clark, National Party leader John Key, Auckland airport chairman Tony Frankham, Graeme Bevans from the Canadian pension fund and Bruce Sheppard from the New Zealand Shareholders Association....