Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-031:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-031 PDF188. 21 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-044:Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-044 PDF609. 76 KB...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 100/94 Decision No: 101/94 Dated the 20th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaints by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR and ALCOHOL HEALTHWATCH Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

During a segment of Seven Sharp, hosts Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells competed in a ‘Steak Off’ to see who could barbecue the best steak. During the competition, Wells wore an apron with an image of a naked man’s torso on the front, with the genitals on the apron pixelated throughout the segment. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, finding it unlikely, in the context, to have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that featuring Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam as an interviewee on Breakfast breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The complainant considered the choice of interviewee was harmful to people affected by Tam and gang-related crime. The Authority found the interview did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard, noting it was not a breach of broadcasting standards to include Tam purely on the basis of his background as a gang member. It further found no breach of the balance standard as the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives on the issue being discussed during the interview. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – "Return to Sender" – item about the return to Sri Lanka of a 16-year-old woman who was deported despite claims that she had been sexually abused by family members to whom she was returning – included footage shot in Sri Lanka with members of the young woman's family and included comments about the sexual abuse of children in Sri Lanka – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with law and order and breached young woman's privacy – item allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – no New Zealand law in dispute – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (vii) – consent form signed by grandmother on young woman's behalf – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – item discussed two controversial issues – (1) specific deportation and dangers for young woman –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Six Feet Under – promo – broadcast on two occasions at about 7. 00pm – portrayed character being kidnapped in his funeral van and later assaulted, robbed and left in dark alley – allegedly unsuitable for children in view of violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) and Guidelines 9a, 9e and 9f – PGR rated promo shown in G time – previously ruled unacceptable – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Six Feet Under was broadcast during One News, on two occasions, between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 27 and 28 September 2004. Six Feet Under is an AO classified programme which screens at 9. 40pm. [2] The promo showed a male character, David, being kidnapped in his own funeral van, and later assaulted, robbed and left in a dark alley....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby – comedy series about a politically incorrect relief teacher – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Episode three of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, a comedy series about a politically incorrect teacher in a New Zealand school, was screened on TV One on 20 May 2005 at 9. 35pm. [2] The programme’s storyline involved the discovery of a used condom in the reading recovery area of the school, and the subsequent revelation that a young female teacher had been sexually involved with a male student....

ComplaintNew Rulers of the World – promo for the John Pilger documentary – answer to one question presented as answer to another – unfair and deceptive – complaint upheld – in-house action taken FindingsSerious breach – action taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The John Pilger documentary, The New Rulers of the World, was screened on TV One at 9. 45pm on 10 October 2001. In a promo broadcast earlier, Mr Fisher of the IMF was seen to respond to a statement from Mr Pilger saying "what are you asking me this question for". However, during the broadcast it was apparent that this response was made to another unrelated question. [2] P G Hatton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo, by using this editing practice, was unfair and lacked objectivity....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about Tauranga surgeon Dr Ian Breeze found guilty of professional misconduct – item described bowel operation which resulted in death of patient as “botched” – patient’s wife interviewed – relatives of other patients interviewed – allegedly breached good taste and decency – allegedly inaccurate, unfair, unbalancedFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “botched” is vernacular – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – matters raised by complainant not required for balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – matters raised by complainant not required for fairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tauranga surgeon Ian Breeze was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 2 December 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989My Wife and Kids – adult character made references to sex life – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme contained oblique and light-hearted sexual innuendo – mild sexual banter would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of My Wife and Kids was broadcast on TV2 at 5. 30pm on Wednesday 11 February 2009. At the beginning of the programme, a family were shown sitting around their kitchen table eating when the mother announced that she wanted to open her own restaurant. The children left the room and the mother and father were left sitting at the table....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus – consulted various experts – challenged traditional Christian view as encapsulated in the gospels – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – issues canvassed in the programme were matters of historical interest as opposed to controversial issues of public importance – authorial documentary approached from perspective of Mr Bruce – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the commonly accepted view of the gospels – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the programme consisted of Mr Bruce’s comment and opinion based on his personal research – viewers would not have been misled – given subject matter of documentary the Authority is not…...