Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item about Tana Umaga’s appointment as All Black captain – reference to Mr Umaga’s dreadlocks – presenter allegedly implied that dreadlocked sportspeople are incompetent and engage in sexually deviant behaviour and law breaking – allegedly breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter’s comments innocuous – neither indecent nor in bad taste – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – matters complained about not expressed or implied in the broadcast – no basis for any of the complainant’s allegations in presenter’s comments – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – sports news "Best of 2006" reviewed rugby league – allegedly unfair in view of the issues covered, allegedly inaccurate in reporting a comment from the Kiwis' coach, and the violence shown was gratuitous FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – review explained its approach and fairly reflected the 2006 season – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no gratuitous violence screened – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The 2006 year in rugby league was reviewed in a sports news series entitled "Best of 2006". The item was broadcast on 29 December 2006 during One News at 6. 00pm on TV One and began: The 2006 rugby league season will probably be remembered more for all the off-field dramas than any playing action....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Between the Sheets – promo broadcast during One News at about 6. 30pm – allegedly gratuitously violent Findings Standard 10 and Guideline 10a (gratuitous violence) – in view of brevity of the relatively innocuous incident included in a promo broadcast during the news, broadcaster showed care and discretion – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the AO-classified Between the Sheets was broadcast during One News on TV One beginning at 6. 00pm on 4 January 2004. The promo briefly showed one man striking another, who fell back after being struck on the jaw or lower face. Complaint [2] Cliff Turner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the violence was gratuitous and unacceptable at that hour....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item, reporting on a national hikoi against the use of 1080, was unbalanced. The item focused on claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Forest & Bird that the increased protest activity was resulting in a rise in threats to staff. The Authority recognised that the item addressed a controversial issue of public importance and found that it pointed to significant viewpoints on this issue, with comment sought from the hikoi organiser, as well as representatives from DOC, Forest & Bird and the Minister of Conservation. The issue was also widely reported in other news media, during the period of current interest, with viewers therefore likely to be aware of the main perspectives on this narrow issue associated with the 1080 debate....

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. Following the 15 March 2019 attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, 1 News at 6pm twice broadcast an edited clip taken from the alleged attacker’s 17‑minute livestream video. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was in breach of the good taste and decency and violence standards. The content of the clip, and the broadcast as a whole, was newsworthy and had a high level of public interest. The very brief clip was an edited segment of the livestream video which provided information to audiences, but which did not contain explicit graphic or violent content and did not promote or glorify the actions of the attacker. Specific warnings and extensive signposting ensured audiences were sufficiently informed about the disturbing nature of the content....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News covered the quarrying of a Dunedin landmark, Saddle Hill, and featured interviews with three people opposed to the quarrying. The reporter stated that quarry owner Calvin Fisher did not respond to his request for an interview, although an offer had been made to ‘replace the hill once the rock has been taken away’. TVNZ upheld Mr Fisher’s complaint, finding that insufficient attempts were made to contact Mr Fisher and the reporter unfairly represented that he was not willing to comment. TVNZ apologised in writing to Mr Fisher, removed the story from its website and discussed the upheld complaint with the reporter and management. However the Authority upheld Mr Fisher’s complaint that this action was insufficient to remedy the breach....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Yo-Kai Watch was in breach of the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. It found that, while the episode contained negative stereotypes that may not be appropriate for children, and which some parents or caregivers may not approve of, the adult themes and sexual innuendos within the episode were not likely to be understood by child viewers, and the potential harm did not reach the level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A National Party campaign advertisement (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) parodied Labour’s campaign motto, ‘Let’s do this’ with an advertisement with the tagline, ‘Let’s tax this’. The advertisement suggested that a Labour government would impose a number of new taxes (a capital gains tax, land tax, regional fuel tax, income tax, water tax and a ‘fart tax’). A voiceover at the conclusion of the advertisement said: ‘There’s only one way to stop Labour’s taxes. Party vote National’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the election programme was inaccurate and misleading by implying a number of taxes would be introduced or raised by Labour, which was not the case....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the trial of Colin Mitchell, who was found guilty of the kidnapping and sexually motivated attack of a young woman. During the item, the reporter stated: ‘DNA evidence from [Mr Mitchell’s] toothbrush matched that found on and inside the pair of gloves left at the quarry; 800,000 million times more likely to have come from Mitchell than anyone else’ [our emphasis]. The Authority declined to determine a complaint that the reporter’s statement was inaccurate because it did not take into account the possibility that Mr Mitchell had an identical twin, or that DNA evidence could have been falsified or planted. The Authority found the complaint was frivolous and trivial....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 TVNZ News – stated that “your odds” of being hit by a piece of satellite were 1 in 3,200 – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was inaccurate in stating that “your odds of being hit by a piece of this satellite. . . [were] 1 in 3,200” because they were the odds of anyone getting hit – misleading to then compare those odds and imply it was more likely than being in a car accident – however broadcaster could have expected to rely on reputable news agency and figures supplied by NASA – effect of inaccuracy not so serious as to outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-086:Paton-Simpson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-086 PDF458. 1 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-079:Disabled Persons Assembly (New Zealand) Inc (Auckland Central Region) and Television New Zealand - 1993-079 PDF301. 22 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 157/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C A MAUDE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-101 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M R BRIDER of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-063 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B L SINCLAIR of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "The Real New Zealand" – gay homestay – promotion of homosexuality – omission of information and warning about sexually transmitted diseases – unbalancedFindings(1) Standard G2 – action taken sufficient – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – no uphold (3) Standard G20 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Documentary New Zealand: "The Real New Zealand" about New Zealand homestays included a segment about a homestay designed for gay visitors. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 21 August 2000. Dennis Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the footage, which he considered promoted homosexuality and contained scenes of nudity among homosexuals which would have been offensive to a majority of viewers....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....