Search Rapua

Summary An item on Holmes featured the Alpha Club which, it reported, represented itself as a travel club. The item suggested the club was involved in pyramid selling activities, and included amateur footage of a club meeting, a woman encouraging another person to join the club, and interviews with people who had attended meetings. An Auckland barrister expressed an opinion that he was in "no doubt" that the activities amounted to pyramid selling. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 May 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Mr Price complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, biased and misleading, and that he had suffered financial loss as a result. TVNZ responded that the barrister interviewed was a recognised expert in the field of consumer law....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host interviewed Professor of Māori history about 21 hui selecting a ‘Māori’ flag to be flown on Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day – both host and interviewee commented that the process was a waste of time and money – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance – One News item the previous evening presented alternative viewpoints which provided balance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments reinforced negative stereotypes but did not reach threshold necessary for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments about Tino Rangatiratanga flag being one of division were clearly the host’s opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness to Māori dealt…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at a couple running the One World Foundation who had been banned from Samoa because of allegations regarding the legitimacy of their work – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainants were treated fairly – chosen interview excerpts fairly represented the complainants’ position – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 March 2008, reported that “a New Zealand-based couple’s been banned from Samoa for life after being accused of taking freebies in the name of charity”....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on celebration of 38th anniversary of coronation of Maori Queen at Turangawaewae marae – item explained that significant part of celebrations included remembering deceased friends and family – comments from Professor James Ritchie as to why this aspect of celebrations significant – commented on Maori and Pakeha attitudes towards death – allegation that item unbalanced and inaccurate in that it portrayed generalised view of spiritual attitudes based on racial lines FindingsStandard 4 (Balance) – item did not discuss issue of controversial public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) – comments from Professor Ritchie expression of opinion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2003-485-2658 PDF1. 96 MBComplaintOne News – item about children kidnapped by "Lord’s Resistance Army" in Uganda – raped – tortured – forced to murder – unsuitable for children at that hourFindingsStandard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9c and 9e – majority – children treated badly – upholdStandard 10 and Guideline 10g – majority – warning necessary in view of violent, disturbing and alarming material – upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The brutality suffered by the children kidnapped by the self-styled Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News, beginning at 6. 00pm on Saturday 5 July 2003. It was reported that as many as 20,000 children had been kidnapped over a period of 17 years and had been tortured, mutilated, raped or forced to kill....

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Embarrassing Bodies – episode focusing on vaginas broadcast at 8. 30pm – close-up shots of women’s vaginas and surgical operations – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme had educational value – clear pre-broadcast warning for nudity and medical scenes – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and preceded by adequate warning – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with President of Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education, as opposed to daycare – President made comments which reflected negatively on daycare – allegedly unbalanced in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – programme framed the interview as a debate about the merits of “Daycare vs Homecare” but item itself had flavour of advertorial – taking into account likely audience, insufficient balance was provided – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-038:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-038 PDF377. 55 KB...

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

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Q+A considered new initiatives proposed by the National Party to tackle domestic violence. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the item 'focused exclusively on women as victims and men as perpetrators of domestic violence', which showed a lack of balance and denigrated men. References to 'men' and 'women' did not amount to a 'discussion of gender' requiring the presentation of alternative views, as alleged by the complainant. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] An item on Q+A considered new initiatives proposed by the National Party to tackle domestic violence. The item contained an interview with the Minister of Justice and a panel discussion with a political scientist, a lawyer and a communications consultant....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The introduction to a Neighbours at War story showed brief footage of a man, GR, on a street outside a bar. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from GR’s son that the broadcast breached GR’s privacy. The footage was very brief, was taken in a public place and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] The introduction to a Neighbours at War story showed brief footage of a man (GR) on a street outside a bar. The man lifted up his t-shirt and appeared to be showing off for the camera. [2] NR, GR’s son, complained that the broadcast breached his father’s privacy, in particular because the filming had taken place a number of years before....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed the difficulties first-home buyers face in attaining a Government HomeStart financial grant. At the end of the item, the reporter discussed the increase in the number of overseas buyers in Auckland. During this segment, footage of three people walking into an open home from the road was shown. At the end of the item, this group and one other individual were shown getting into a car parked in the street, with the number plate clearly visible. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this footage breached the group’s privacy. While the individuals walking to the car were identifiable, none of their personal details were disclosed, and they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances....