Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse by a man, P against a 90-year-old woman, E. The programme also featured P's 'mentor' (M), a spokesperson from E's bank and comment from E and her grandson. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. Both P and M were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment, the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the item was accurate and the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required the presentation of alternative views. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse....

ComplaintShortland Street – episodes about a child of drug dealer in coma having taken a capsule of cannabis oil – drug dealer said she gave child small amounts of cannabis oil to calm him as he was ADHD – offensive – encouraged illegal behaviour – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a and Standard 2 – use of cannabis oil to treat ADHD child shown as unacceptable and irresponsible – no uphold Standards 4 and 5 – do not apply to fictional programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The treatment of a child "Max", who had taken a capsule of cannabis oil was a story line in an episode of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 17 July 2002....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – scene contained two female characters kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and controversial issues standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – kissing scene was brief and innocuous – not made less acceptable by the fact the kiss was between two women – content was consistent with the programme’s G rating and not unsuitable for children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme was correctly rated G and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes – Coronation Street was a fictional drama – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homegrown – programme investigating history of beer in New Zealand – words "bastards", "bloody", "crap", "boobs or balls" and "shitloads" used – other words censored – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – language was humorous rather than abusive – worst language was censored – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Homegrown, a locally produced series which investigated various aspects of New Zealand culture and particularly produce, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 1 November 2008. This episode looked at the history of beer brewing in New Zealand. [2] During the programme, the words "bastards", "bloody", "crap", "boobs or balls" and "shitloads" were used, predominantly by one of the interviewees. Some other words were bleeped out....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-023:Burt and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-023 PDF293. 72 KB...

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on 1 News reporting on Immigration New Zealand’s decision to review Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s (also known as Posie Parker) entry into New Zealand breached broadcasting standards. The complainants were concerned with: the report’s description of Parker as ‘anti-trans’ and of neo-Nazis ‘supporting’ Parker; the lack of interviewees supporting Parker in the reports; and the unfair treatment of Parker. The Authority found the items were sufficiently balanced by significant perspectives included both within the broadcast and in other coverage within the period of current interest; any criticism of Parker did not exceed the robust scrutiny expected of public figures; and it did not breach standards to describe Parker as ‘anti‑trans’ (given her views) or to state that neo-Nazis ‘supported’ her at a previous rally. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The majority of the Authority upheld (in part) a complaint about a segment on Marae discussing the bounds of the right to freedom of expression, in the wake of Posie Parker’s ‘Let Women Speak’ events. The complaint argued the segment was unbalanced, disproportionately favouring views of participants against the events, and inaccurate in multiple respects. The Authority found the segment adequately presented significant viewpoints through the inclusion of multiple guests, through the host’s questioning and in the introductory segment. The Authority considered most of the alleged inaccuracies were unlikely to have significantly affected viewers’ understanding of the broadcast as a whole. The majority found one of the comments in the broadcast (relating to the characterisation of Parker) was materially inaccurate and this issue created harm sufficient to justify a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. Upheld by Majority: Accuracy, Not Upheld: Balance No Order...

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown – three people suffering from serious mental illness – released into community – tragic results – documentary said to be unbalanced and inaccurate, and to have denigrated the mentally ill Findings Standard 4 – item’s focus on three cases where the mental health system had failed – balanced in view of narrow focus – not upheld Standard 5 – accurate in view of item’s focus – not upheld Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no discrimination against or denigration of mentally ill in view of item’s focus – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Three cases involving people suffering from serious mental illness who were released into the community with tragic results were examined in a documentary broadcast on TV One. The programme Documentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown was screened at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item examined crash of Silkair 737 in which all passengers and crew were killed – official investigation said cause unknown – decision widely criticised – view expressed by father of co-pilot that pilot deliberately crashed the plane – other comments in support – father’s theory examined fully – item advised that Indonesian Government reopened investigation and then decided not to proceed – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item omitted credible alternative theory – upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The crash of a Silkair 737 in Indonesia in 1998 was reviewed from the perspective of the father (Derek Ward) of the New Zealand co-pilot, who died in the crash, in an item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 20 June 2004....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...

ComplaintRacing – Live coverage of Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham – arch behind presenters bearing words Lion Brown – incidental liquor promotion – considerable liquor signage – saturation of liquor promotion FindingsStandard A1 – no saturation of liquor promotion – no uphold Standard A3 – repeated visuals of arch – incidental liquor promotion not minimised – uphold OrderCosts to Crown of $750 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Live coverage of the Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham was shown on TV One between 5. 00–6. 00pm on 25 January 2003. The coverage included comments from the presenters when, on a number of occasions, there was an arch bearing the words "Lion Brown" in the background. [2] Cliff Turner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of the arch amounted to the incidental promotion of liquor....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 1News discussing a recent Government policy announcement that referendums would be introduced for Māori wards on local councils breached the balance standard. The complainant considered the segment biased against the Government policy on reintroducing referendums given the choice of viewpoints presented, content and language included. The standard does not require opposing viewpoints to be given the same amount of time or number of speakers. The Authority found the broadcast sufficiently presented significant viewpoints. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Breakfast segment breached the accuracy standard through its reporting on a study by RMIT and Monash Universities. The study found low carbohydrate diets may increase a person’s risk of developing type two diabetes by 20% because people often replace the carbohydrates with unhealthy fats. The complainant considered statements in the broadcast that low carbohydrate diets can increase the risk of developing type two diabetes were wrong and misleading; that the programme inappropriately pushed whole grains and fruit as a better choice compared to healthy fats, red meat, and dairy; and the researcher’s comments regarding the Atkins diet and the results of the study were unreliable. The Authority found the relevant statements would not have misled viewers in the context and it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on the accuracy of the study and the researcher’s comments. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Father Ted – alleged crude humour – alleged disgraceful portrayal of Christian leadersFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g – Father Ted does not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Roman Catholic priests – legitimate work of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Father Ted is a long running British comedy series. A repeat of episodes from the second series screened on TV One on Saturday evenings in November 2003 at 7. 30pm. Television New Zealand Ltd described Father Ted as a series which “makes fun of human foibles through the adventures of a small group of Roman Catholic priests assigned to a remote, fictional island off the coast of Ireland. ” The complainant watched the episodes broadcast on 22 and 29 November....

ComplaintFair Go – item about pamphlet distributed by complainant – a legal firm – offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in dealing with ACC – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced and complainant’s response presented inadequately – unfair as story subject’s waiver was incomplete – inaccurate – hearing sought in view of numerous complex legal and factual issues Decision on application for hearingDeclined This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTURY DECISION Background [1] A pamphlet offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in securing compensation from ACC was distributed by the complainant – a legal firm. On behalf of a victim, named as "Sally", Fair Go reported her dissatisfaction with the complainant and investigated the propriety of a pamphlet of this kind. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 26 June 2002....

ComplaintNew Zealand Festival: Virginity – language – "did you fuck him? " – offensive FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – not gratuitous – acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme New Zealand Festival: Virginity was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 19 February 2001. One of the seven women who spoke of their first sexual experiences reported that she was later asked by an acquaintance, "did you fuck him? " Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "fuck" was grossly offensive. He argued that the classification of a programme as AO and the inclusion of a warning did not excuse the broadcaster from the requirement to maintain standards of good taste and decency....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 69/95 Decision No: 70/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY of Auckland and PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...