Search Rapua

A PDF of Decision 1999-053 can be downloaded here:Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-053 PDF185. 19 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Friday Night of Comedy – contained footage from programme episodes that had already screened – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – comedy promo not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – promo was generic and promoted programme series, as opposed to specific upcoming episodes – promo did not deceive or disadvantage viewers as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Friday Night of Comedy highlighted multiple programmes that were scheduled to screen that evening, and contained footage from the different programme series. The promo was broadcast on TV One at about 6. 20pm on 24 August 2012....

ComplaintHolmes – comment that Ponsonby Rugby Club had produced the most All Blacks – inaccurate – TVNZ upheld complaint as technical breach of Principle 5 and apologised – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] During a Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 25 August 2003, a reporter commented that Ponsonby Rugby Club had produced the most All Blacks. The statement was repeated later in the programme by the presenter. [2] Mr Burke complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the statement was inaccurate. [3] TVNZ upheld the complaint and apologised by letter to the complainant and members of his rugby club. [4] Dissatisfied that TVNZ's action upon upholding the complaint did not include an on-air correction and apology, Mr Burke referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about the employment of disabled person – employer told of physical disability only – employee had mental health disability as well – disruption of staff – employer believed that she should have been told of mental health disability – allegedly discriminated against mentally disabledFindings Standard 6 and Guideline 6g (discrimination) – item focused on specific employee and presenter’s comment on specific employer – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The disruption caused by an employee with a mental health disability was recounted by a Nelson hairdresser in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 June 2004....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-035: Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-035 PDF237. 41 KB...

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...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp on Valentine’s Day reported on a woman who had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item glamorised theft and was unfair to the man. It was clear from the item that the woman had given the man ample opportunity to retrieve the sunglasses, and he was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgramingIntroduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp, broadcast on 14 February 2014, included an ‘anti-Valentine’s Day’ story where a woman had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-044:Hansen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-044 PDF347. 71 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-113–114:Smits and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-113, 1993-114 PDF798. 21 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a segment on Police Ten 7 breached the discrimination and denigration standard. A man called a woman who had called the police a ‘nosey motherf***ing white c***’. The Authority found in the context of the long-running series, and the particular programme, this comment did not reach the threshold for a finding that it encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News in which Darryl Leigh Thomson was described as a co-writer of the song ‘E Tū’. While the Authority agreed it was not accurate to describe Mr Thomson as having co-written the song, it found TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the balance standard regarding an episode of Breakfast that referred to New Zealand as Aotearoa. The complainant considered the name Aotearoa should not be used to replace the country’s official name. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine: Balance (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances)...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an episode of 20/20 aired on free-to-air television on a Sunday at 9am, detailing serial killer Ted Bundy’s crimes, motivations, and background, breached the children’s interests and programme information standards. The Authority noted that the broadcast presented in detail some potentially distressing and disturbing content, and themes including sexual violence and perversion, murder, and abduction, without any audience advisory or warning for this content. Additionally, the Authority considered the content and themes were suited for broadcast during the M timeband (suitable for a mature audience), rather than during PG time (which indicated the content was not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers under adult supervision). Viewers were not given sufficient information or signposting about the programme’s likely content to enable them to make informed choices about whether they, or children in their care, should view the broadcast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of exclamations including ‘oh my God’, ‘holy crap’ and ‘bloody’ in an episode of House Rules, broadcast at 7. 30pm, breached the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the language used would not have caused audiences undue offence or harm and it was not beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

ComplaintNews item about magazine for divorced people – offensive behaviour – picture of nude couple having sex FindingsStandard G2 – not inappropriate subject matter – momentary image – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Divorced people were providing a new market for entrepreneurs in the magazine industry, according to a news report on One News broadcast on 28 September 2000 at about 6. 20pm. Pages which were shown from a magazine included a picture of an apparently nude couple. Glenyss Barker, secretary of Viewers for Television Excellence (VOTE), complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the picture, which she said showed a nude couple having sex. She said it was inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children would be watching television....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on funding cuts to telephone support service for victims of rape and sexual assault – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on funding cuts to service – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of sexual violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the primary perpetrators of sexual violence and women the victims – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder broadcast at 7. 15pm during Shortland Street contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the sexual references in the promo were inappropriate for broadcast in this timeslot. The reference to oral sex was inexplicit, would not likely have been understood by most younger viewers and did not exceed expectations of the regular audience of the host programme, which frequently contains mature themes. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children's InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen as follows: Presenter: What might pineapple do to something in your body? Woman: Change the taste of your semen. . . ? Presenter: Have you given it a crack?...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....