Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on Sunday breached the accuracy, balance, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast featured a 30 minute report on Aotearoa New Zealand’s medical staffing shortages, and explored whether this issue could be alleviated by the migration of medical staff from the USA, particularly those dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v Wade. The complainants considered the broadcast unbalanced, favouring a ‘pro-choice’ perspective....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News, reporting on the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in the region of Kherson, Ukraine, incorrectly attributed responsibility for the incident, and shelling of the region after the incident, to Russia. The Authority noted the broadcast did not state, either expressly or implicitly, who was responsible for the dam’s destruction. Further, while the Authority acknowledged the broadcast may have implied Russia was responsible for some shelling in the Kherson region, this suggestion was not inaccurate, and the broadcast did not state Russia shelled the region after the dam’s destruction. It accordingly found no breach of the accuracy standard. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Motorway Patrol breached the privacy standard. A short segment of the programme focused on a Senior Constable attending a crash on an Auckland motorway. It featured footage of the complainant as a ‘Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to check on the person in the crashed vehicle. The Authority acknowledged the impact of the broadcast on the complainant, who said they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes and were not asked for consent. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, the Authority found the broadcast did not disclose information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

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....

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 Shortland Street – episodes involving – casual sex (one night stand) – the use of toothpaste to make a child ill – ending an episode with voodoo-inspired fear – adult themes – inappropriate for broadcast to young people at 7. 00pm FindingsStandard G8 – appropriately rated PGR – no uphold Standard G12 – classification evidence of being mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Shortland Street is a long running fictional series broadcast at 7. 00pm on weekdays on TV2. The episode broadcast on 12 August 2001 included a central character having a one-night sexual encounter, the episode on 17 August raised the possibility of giving a child some toothpaste to make her ill to enable the mother to have a break, and on 21 August, an episode concluded with fear inspired by the use of voodoo....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that two sex scenes in Nip/Tuck were too explicit for free-to-air television and breached standards of good taste and decency. One of the scenes included a threesome involving one of the lead characters. The viewer also complained about the use of offensive language during another scene in which a "phone sex artist" discussed throat surgery with her doctor. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ argued that the scenes were acceptable in the context of an AO-rated programme screening at 9. 30pm with a warning for adult sexual material. The broadcaster said the sex scenes were important to the development of the storyline, did not contain any explicit nudity, and were not pornographic. The Authority’s DecisionAs well as the contextual factors noted above (the programme's AO classification, the warning about sexual content, the 9....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – after an item about duck hunting maimais, the news presenter stated “a man needs his cave” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – complainant mistaken – broadcaster’s response adequate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6. 55pm on Friday 2 May 2008, reported on a group of duck-hunting “Southern men” who held an annual award ceremony for the best maimai (a camouflaged construction that shelters and hides duck hunters). The item looked at two different maimais, one consisting of a raised camouflaged caravan, and the other a small house-like structure that had running water, beer on tap and SKY television....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on a strip club package for supporters of Lions rugby tour – naked women shown playing pool – demonstration of lap dancing – bedroom with mirrors shown – allegedly offensive, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children – presenter said “stuff you bitch” at end of programme about another matter – allegedly offensiveFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – not applicable to news and current affairs – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – sufficient earlier indications of focus of item – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The package offered by a strip club for Lions rugby supporters was covered in an item on Holmes broadcast on Prime at 7. 00pm on 24 May 2005....

ComplaintHolmes – lifting of moratorium on commercial release of genetically modified organisms – studio debate – “Trust and Country Image” report discussed – complainant maintained he accurately quoted report – presenter allegedly misrepresented report – presenter allegedly unfairly criticised complainant Findings Standard 5 – presenter’s introductory statement on report inaccurate – upheld Standard 5 – presenter’s criticism a question of fairness, not accuracy – issue considered under Standard 6 Standard 6 – presenter’s vehement interjection amounted to accusation of deliberate misrepresentation – content, manner and tone of interjection an unfair overreaction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 23 October 2003 dealt with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on water leak in West Auckland – stated that Watercare had failed to respond to complaints about water leak – interviewed representative from Watercare – showed person drinking water which had come from storm-water drain – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created impression that complaints made to Watercare and that Watercare failed to respond to complaints – Watercare and council separate organisations – item inaccurate and misleading – however, in light of factual background, broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure item accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Watercare invited to appear on Close Up with regard to complaint made 6 November – Watercare given sufficient opportunity to check records given nature of allegations made against it – not upheld…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – graphic “Election 2011” during election coverage included ticked blue box – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – use of the logo did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – broadcaster entitled to editorial discretion to use standard graphics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During One News election coverage broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 18 October 2011, a logo was displayed stating “Election 2011”, which included a blue box with a white tick mark....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

ComplaintReel Life: The Lost Boys – documentary – language – fucking as adjective – "I’ll fucking kill everything" – offensive FindingsSection4(1)(a) – language helped viewers understanding of young man – other contextual factors – rating – time – warning – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The documentary Reel Life: The Lost Boys looked at the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado in 1999. An actor read from the website of one of the assailants in which, among other matters, he referred to "fucking people" and said "I’ll fucking kill everything". The programme was broadcast on TV One at 9. 45pm on 2 March 2001. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the "f" word was offensive and its use in the documentary breached the standards....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1/95 Dated the 24th day of January 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DENNIS FRANK of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 73/94 Dated the 1st day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RESCARE NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News covered ‘the Foreign Minister’s controversial payment of $11. 5 million towards businessman Hmood Al-Ali Al-Khalaf’s Saudi farm’. It reported that Minister Murray McCully had ‘struck the deal to avoid a $30 million legal threat’, but then denied that there had been a legal threat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair to the Minister by failing to distinguish between Mr Al-Khalaf merely assessing his legal position and actually threatening legal action, and consequently misrepresenting the Minister’s position. The issue arose through the use of ambiguous language, both by the broadcaster and by the Minister, and did not justify the Authority upholding a breach of standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that reality dating show Naked Attraction, broadcast after 10pm on TVNZ 2, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, potential love interests are introduced by gradually revealing their naked bodies, from the feet up (un-pixelated). With reference to previous decisions on earlier episodes of the programme, the Authority found that while the programme may not have been to everybody’s taste, ample information was available to enable viewers to make a different viewing choice. In the context there was no harm caused which justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...