Search Rapua

An item on 1 News reported on the outcome of the US defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance by favouring Heard’s perspective and that certain statements were inaccurate or misleading. It found the balance standard did not apply as the complainant’s concerns did not relate to the omission of perspectives concerning a controversial issue of public importance as required. In any event, reasonable efforts were made to present Depp’s perspective. In relation to the statements that were allegedly inaccurate or misleading, the Authority found they were either materially accurate, or distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the good taste and decency standard about the use of coarse language in the American action comedy film Beverly Hills Cop. Taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the AO classification, time of broadcast at 8. 30pm during adult viewing time, clear warning for frequent use of coarse language, and audience expectations of the film and TVNZ DUKE, the Authority was satisfied the broadcaster gave viewers sufficient information to regulate their own, and their children’s, viewing. In the context, the broadcast did not threaten community standards of good taste and decency and the broadcaster adequately enabled child viewers to be protected from potentially unsuitable content. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed ‘growing calls’ for New Zealand’s right to silence laws to be urgently changed. The complaint was the item failed to present the views of the many authorities who support the status quo, or include relevant historical context, and used unduly emotive language to advance an unbalanced narrative. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, within the period of current interest, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of views and information on the right to silence in cases of child abuse. It also found the broadcast approached this issue from a particular perspective and did not purport to be a balanced examination....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘Carpool Kōrero’ segment in an episode of Popstars during which a celebrity guest talked to each of the contestants while apparently driving a car. The complainant alleged a young person may have been unable to discern the guest was not in fact driving, and therefore the broadcast breached the law and order standard. The Authority found reasonably attentive viewers would have likely understood the segment took place in a simulated environment and in any case the broadcast was unlikely to encourage audiences to break the law. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed a controversial wall-hanging in a Puhoi Pub bearing the n-word, and included footage of the wall-hanging itself. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the good taste and decency standard by displaying the offensive term multiple times, when the item could have discussed the issue without doing so. The Authority noted the item censored verbal reference to the term by the pub’s owner, and was preceded by a verbal warning that ‘some viewers may find details in Jenny Suo’s story distressing’. It also noted the item’s footage of the wall-hanging was part of its critical examination of the issue, the offensive term was not depicted outside that context, and the broadcast carried significant public interest in creating an active public discourse....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that reported a third marine heatwave in four years in Auckland and Northland. It described the causes of the heatwave in terms of subtropical winds and global warming, and its consequences in terms of sea level rises and ocean acidification, and included comments from local experts. The complaint was that the broadcast misled viewers to believe the higher ocean temperatures in Northland and Auckland were due principally to climate change and the warming effects were global (when actually the heatwave was driven by a natural climate event, occurring locally). The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, including reliance on authoritative experts, and the broadcast was unlikely to mislead viewers. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

In a news report covering Eli Epiha’s trial, the reporter stated Mr Epiha was carrying a Bible when he was in fact carrying a Qur’an. The Authority has not upheld a complaint the broadcast breached the accuracy standard. The fact Mr Epiha was carrying a Qur’an was not a material point of fact likely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with father of escaped prisoner – used words “arsehole” and “bugger” – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A father whose son had escaped from prison was interviewed in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 22 April 2004. The father, whose home had been burgled by his son on at least three occasions, appealed to his son to give himself up. During the interview, the father used the word “arsehole” and also used the word “bugger” at least three times. Complaint [2] Gary Welch and Don Campbell each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word “arsehole” was unacceptable and in breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-020 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LAURIE SANDERS of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment made during live coverage of a Black Caps cricket match breached the discrimination and denigration standard for ridiculing mental health/illness – and, by extension, people with mental illness. Commentator Scotty Stevenson said, ‘Built on the site of a former asylum, Otago Boys’ High School. Having met some of the old boys, don't think much has changed. ’ The Authority recognised that while some may view the comment as insensitive and inappropriate, the comment did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. The broadcast was unlikely to encourage the different treatment of those with mental illness to their detriment, nor devalue their reputation. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tudors – included a scene in which a man was tortured by having a burning hot steel rod pushed up his backside – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – did not promote, glamorise or condone torture – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Tudors, a drama series about the reign and marriages of King Henry VIII, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 1 November 2010. The programme included a brief scene in which a rebel leader was tortured....

ComplaintHolmes – footage of English coach’s half-time speech – offensive language – unsuitable for childrenFindings(1) Standard G2 – use of language not endorsed – no uphold (2) Standard G12 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage from a soccer coach’s half-time speech to players which contained strong language was broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 27 April 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage contained repeated and gratuitous offensive language. He contended that the item was offensive and unsuitable for children. TVNZ responded that the item was linked to new research findings that such angry motivational speeches did not assist performance, and maintained that the item was of topical interest....

During Breakfast, a news presenter laughed before introducing a report regarding Remembrance Sunday. The Authority found this did not breach the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the laughter was clearly directed at another presenter sneezing on-air, not at the story, and would not have caused audiences undue offence or distress, or undermined widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-050:Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-050 PDF297. 88 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-070:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-070 PDF484. 44 KB...

In an episode of Seven Sharp, journalist Laura Daniels presented regarding creating a European inspired holiday from within New Zealand, in the context of COVID-19 travel restrictions. It included a scene where she pretended to eat cigarettes from a plate. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast was inappropriate for children to watch and breached the children’s interests standard. Taking the contextual factors into account, in particular the audience expectations of Seven Sharp, the Authority found the segment was unlikely to adversely affect children. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News item looking at the housing crisis on Waiheke Island. One affected resident who was interviewed said he ‘[felt] like a gypsy wandering around, living out of suitcases and boxes’. The complaint was that the use of the word ‘gypsy’ was derogatory and evokes prejudicial biases towards the Roma community. While the Authority has previously acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the word, in this particular context it did not outweigh the interviewee’s right to express himself and describe his experience. This expression and the item as a whole carried high value and public interest and did not warrant regulatory intervention or restricting the important right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...