Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq, shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – broadcast was in the public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on One News at 6pm on 30 September 2004 showed video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq. The video showed Mr Bigley shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government. [2] The introduction to the piece indicated that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had shifted position slightly and hinted that some contact with the hostage takers might be attempted. Complaint [3] J M Copland complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintOne News – item concerning Prime Minister’s announcement not to attend at Waitangi for services – included archival footage of Prime Minister upset at previous Waitangi Day service – tasteless – unfair FindingsStandard 1 – historical significance – contextual relevance – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to Prime Minister – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2003 concerned the Prime Minister’s announcement that she would not attend services at Waitangi on Waitangi Day. The item included archival footage of the Prime Minister crying at a previous Waitangi Day celebration. [2] Mr Penrice complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item should not have included this historical footage of the Prime Minister....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Invader Zim – cartoon programme – allegedly in breach of children’s interestsFindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – not likely to disturb or alarm children – sufficiently unrealistic – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A cartoon programme called Invader Zim screened on TV2 at 7:45am on Sunday 17 July 2005. The cartoon follows Zim, a character bent on taking over the universe. After nearly destroying his own planet, he is banished to Earth where he attends “skool”, while furthering his plot to exterminate all humans. Complaint [2] Timothy Bennett Mace complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was not suitable for children....

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about rescue helicopter trip to Raoul Island following volcanic eruption – one DOC worker missing – member of rescue team commented that supplies included a body bag – complaint that reference to body bag was hurtful to missing worker’s family and item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – news item dealt with reality of situation – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The organisation of a rescue team to fly to Raoul Island to search for a missing Department of Conservation staff member, following a volcanic eruption, was dealt with in an item on One News broadcast on 17 March 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm. The logistics of the helicopter flight were covered as was previous volcanic activity on the island....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – repeat episode at 7am on a Sunday morning – reported controversy over recent photographs in Pavement magazine – showed photographs of topless 19-year-old girl – allegedly in breach of children’s interests. FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A repeat episode of the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast on TV One at 7am on Sunday 29 October 2006. One item reported controversy over a recent magazine spread in Pavement magazine, which some people argued contained sexualised images of girls as young as 11 years of age. The programme featured photographs from the magazine, including several shots of a topless 19-year-old girl, and showed advertisements with models adopting suggestive poses....

Complaint One News – offensive behaviour – scantily-clad woman – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – brief footage – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A charity hair dressing event was the subject of an item on One News broadcast on TV One on 6 February. The item included a brief shot of a woman dancer who was one of the entertainers at the event. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that it was offensive to show the scantily-clad woman’s "naked backside" in prime family viewing time. He considered that many children watching would have been led to believe it was normal to be naked in public. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that the woman was not naked but was wearing a thong....

Two complaints from the subjects of a Fair Go investigation have not been upheld. The investigation focussed on the sale of a massage product to an elderly man with severe foot pain. The Authority found the privacy of the salesperson was not breached through the brief broadcast of their business card which contained their image and contact details. The Authority found this did not amount to a highly offensive disclosure of private information. The Authority also found the broadcasts did not breach the balance, accuracy and fairness standards, finding that the broadcasts were unlikely to significantly misinform viewers regarding the sale of the product and the product itself. The Authority also found that, while there was public interest in the story, it did not amount to a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of the balance standard....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Extreme Male Beauty – reality series about a journalist trying to achieve the perfect male body contained male nudity including genitalia – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – nudity was matter-of-fact and not designed to titillate – consistent with AO classification and 9. 30pm time of broadcast – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Extreme Male Beauty, a reality series following a journalist and his journey to have the perfect male body, was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on Wednesday 15 September 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During her ‘final word’ segment on Seven Sharp presenter Toni Street discussed her support for arming front-line police officers with tasers and mentioned the recent murder of Blessie Gotingco. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that her comments were inaccurate and misleading. Ms Street’s comments were clearly opinion which were exempt from standards of accuracy; she did not connect the use of tasers to Blessie Gotingco’s murder; and she did not make any statements of fact that were inaccurate or would have misled viewers. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During her ‘final word’ segment on an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Toni Street discussed her support for the recent move to arm front-line police officers with tasers. She said:Alright, according to our poll on tasers tonight. . . drumroll. . ....

Paula Rose 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. ]On 14 November 2016, in a 1 News special update, the newsreader updated viewers on events surrounding a 7. 8 magnitude earthquake centred near Kaikoura that occurred just after midnight that day. The newsreader stated, ‘there has been another quake-related death at Mt Lyford; that is after someone suffered a heart attack’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the partner of the person who died at Mt Lyford that this statement was inaccurate given that his partner had died from earthquake-related injuries, but not a heart attack. The Authority acknowledged these were distressing circumstances for the complainant....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Breakfast, host Hayley Holt had a conversation with the 1 News US Correspondent about recent school protests in America seeking gun reform. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Ms Holt’s statement that ‘[w]e, I – here in New Zealand, we think they should ban all guns of course’ was unbalanced and likely to mislead viewers. The Authority found that Ms Holt’s statement was one of generalised opinion and analysis, not a statement of fact. The Authority also noted that this segment solely focused on gun control issues in the USA, not New Zealand, and in this context Ms Holt’s brief comment did not trigger the requirements of the balance standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy, BalanceIntroduction[1] During Breakfast, host Hayley Holt had a conversation with the 1 News US Correspondent about recent school protests in America seeking gun reform....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-007:Forbes (on behalf of the Children's Television Foundation) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-007 PDF463. 42 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News including criticism of Easter trading restrictions and of the councils imposing them, in the wake of COVID-19 and its impact on retailers. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced on the basis it failed to include the views of the councils being criticised, and of others who supported current restrictions, such as unions and churches. The Authority found, in the context of an item discussing criticism of the status quo, and where debate about Easter trading restrictions and coverage of such debate is ongoing, viewers were unlikely to be left misinformed by the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance...

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of the programme Renters breached the privacy of the tenants of the properties featured. The majority of the Authority did not find any of the tenants were identifiable. As the privacy standard only applies to identifiable individuals, the standard did not apply. The minority view was that the information disclosed was adequate to enable viewers, beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matters disclosed, to identify one individual and the information had the quality of private information such that the disclosure breached the privacy standard. Not Upheld by Majority: Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of comedy gameshow, Have You Been Paying Attention? , which depicted the President of the United States Donald Trump wearing a capirote (a pointed hood as worn by members of the Ku Klux Klan). The Authority found such confronting symbolism pushed the boundaries of acceptable satire. However, it did not breach the good taste and decency standard, given the importance of freedom of expression and satire as a legitimate form of expression. Mr Trump’s public profile was also a factor. The complainant had not identified any affected section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applied. Nor did the accuracy standard apply as the programme was not news, current affairs or factual programming. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...