Search Rapua

Search Decisions
Broadcast Information
Codes and Standards
Date Range
Showing 2081 - 2100 of 2204 results.
SORT BY
Decisions
O’Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2012-131
2012-131

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter referred to Tip Top ice cream competition and informed viewers how to enter – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – segment did not threaten objectives behind “responsible programming” – promotions of this nature are now commonplace – Broadcasting Act and standards as written do not contemplate this type of segment or give authority to address these issues – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching, in the manner envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During a segment on Breakfast, the presenter referred to a ‘Feel Tip Top Giveaway’ competition....

Decisions
Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-084
1993-084

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-084:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-084 PDF500. 47 KB...

Decisions
Helm and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-002
1993-002

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-002:Helm and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-002 PDF321. 84 KB...

Decisions
Barry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2016-077 (15 December 2016)
2016-077

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for an episode of the comedy-drama series Lucifer was broadcast during Sunday. In the promo, the main character, Lucifer, was shown impersonating a priest and hearing a woman’s confession. Lucifer said to the woman, ‘Your penance: ten Bloody Marys and a good shag’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the main character’s impersonation of a priest was inappropriate, offensive and denigrated Catholics and Christians. The Authority acknowledged that the promo would have been upsetting to some viewers who hold certain beliefs, but found in the context of the broadcast the promo did not reach the threshold for finding a breach of standards. The promo reflected the content of the fictional programme promoted, and was intended to be humorous and light-hearted. It contained only low-level sexual innuendo....

Decisions
Insley & Soryl and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-028
2015-028

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

Decisions
Moore and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2013-093
2013-093

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Decisions
Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035
1991-035

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

Decisions
Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-062
1991-062

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-062:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-062 PDF276. 59 KB...

Decisions
O'Connor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2014-139
2014-139

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The election coverage programme Vote 2014 included footage of Te Ururoa Flavell speaking to Māori Party supporters in te reo Māori. One of the presenters said, '[O]bviously as he's speaking in Māori, in te reo, and the vast majority of us aren't going to understand that. . . let's go back to David Cunliffe. . . ' and the broadcast crossed to Mr Cunliffe's speech. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the comment was racist and unfair. Although the comment was disrespectful and dismissive of the fact that te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand, it did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration, and was not unfair to Mr Flavell, especially in the context of an important political event....

Decisions
Alexander and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2013-080
2013-080

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of This Town showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this encouraged cruelty to animals and was inappropriately rated G. While some viewers may have found the footage unpleasant, it was not unexpected or gratuitous as the subject matter was well signposted, and it highlighted the reality that we live in a society which eats meat and that animals must be killed and prepared in order for this to occur. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] This Town, a documentary series about people living in small towns in New Zealand, profiled a group of duck hunters and showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating....

Decisions
Leitch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-175
1993-175

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-175:Leitch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-175 PDF576. 5 KB...

Decisions
Leckey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-138
1993-138

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-138:Leckey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-138 PDF864. 85 KB...

Decisions
Radley and Angus and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2011-142
2011-142

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaints under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Labour Party Asset Sales Advertisement – contained comment, “vote National and kiss your assets goodbye” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) – advertisement was clearly Labour’s analysis and opinion of National’s policy on asset sales – guideline 5a to Standard exempts analysis and opinion from standards of accuracy – viewers would have understood that the advertisement was encouraging people to vote for Labour – freedom of expression crucial to democracy and political debate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party was broadcast on TV One on 14 November 2011 at 7am, and on 24 November 2011 at 7....

Decisions
NT and Television New Zealand - 2019-028 (19 August 2019)
2019-028

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....

Decisions
Bardwell and Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-166, 1993-167
1993-166–167

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-166–167:Bardwell and Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-166, 1993-167 PDF496. 64 KB...

Decisions
Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-044
1991-044

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

Decisions
Bartlett and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-002
1990-002

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-002:Bartlett and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-002 PDF307. 38 KB...

Decisions
MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030
1990-030

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Decisions
New Zealand Police and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-104
1992-104

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-104:New Zealand Police and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-104 PDF2. 21 MB...

Decisions
PN and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2016-041 (15 September 2016)
2016-041

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad featured footage taken at a named international airport in New Zealand, during which a Ministry for Primary Industries detector dog found an apple in a couple’s bag. PN, a Quarantine Officer, was shown questioning the couple about the apple and issuing them with a fine. The faces of PN and the couple, and PN’s identity tag, were blurred and PN was not named. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment breached PN’s privacy. While it found that, despite the blurring, PN was identifiable in the broadcast, it did not consider that any private information was disclosed during the segment....

1 ... 104 105 106 ... 111