Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – footage of interpreter during murder trial – High Court ruled that interpreter’s image was not to be broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – disclosure of complainant’s presence at trial would not be considered highly offensive by an objective reasonable person – 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 23 July 2009 reported that the Justice Minister was calling for the repeal of the defence of provocation, following the conclusion of two murder trials. [2] The item included footage of both murder trials. Two brief shots of one of the defendants sitting in the dock were shown, with a woman sitting alongside the dock....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint An Audience with the King – offensive language – broadcaster failed to consider children’s viewing interests FindingsStandard 1 – majority – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – broadcaster was mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Audience with the King recorded the performance of stand-up comedian Mike King before a live audience. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 11 October 2002. [2] Graham Fox complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was offensive, and that it was irresponsible to have broadcast such material at a time when children were likely to be watching television. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the programme in context did not breach current norms of good taste and decency, and that it had considered the viewing interests of children....

Complaint60 Minutes – promo – clip of Norm Hewitt – use of word "shit" – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – breach of classification codes and time bands – not mindful of the effect on children – explicit material unacceptable in a promo FindingsStandard G2 – quietly used vernacular figure of speech – context – no uphold Standard G8 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard G12 – important social message for younger viewers – no uphold Standard G24 – no violence or other explicit material – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the current affairs programme 60 Minutes contained a 30-second clip of professional rugby player, Norm Hewitt. It was broadcast on 20 October 2001 at 6. 35pm during One News....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the remark was blasphemous and offensive to Christians. The use of variants of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation does not amount to coarse language in modern secular society. Here it was intended to be humorous rather than abusive or offensive, and it was acceptable in context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The episode was rated AO and was broadcast on TV ONE at 10. 05pm on 26 September 2013....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-075:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-075 PDF484. 07 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-151–155:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-151–155 PDF1. 22 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-019:Seymour and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-019 PDF1015. 04 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on Prime Minister Bill English’s experience during Waitangi Day, including a phone call with the President of the United States of America, President Trump. During an introduction to the item, the newsreader referred to President Trump’s ‘anti-Muslim travel ban’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the newsreader’s statement was inaccurate and unbalanced. The focus of this item was not the precise terms of Executive Order 13679 or its implications, but rather Bill English’s experiences on his first Waitangi Day as Prime Minister, during which his phone discussion with President Trump took place. In this context, the newsreader’s shorthand description of the Order was acceptable. The Authority pointed out, however, that broadcasters should take care when adopting commonly used shorthand terms, as this may not always be sufficient to meet standards of accuracy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News, which reported on a recent win and the increasing success of the Black Ferns rugby team. The complainant alleged the item was inaccurate and misleading as the number of attendees at the game was incorrectly reported. The Authority found that while the number of attendees was stated incorrectly, this was immaterial to the focus of the item which was the Black Ferns’ win and growing success, and unlikely to affect the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole. Not Upheld: AccuracyThe broadcast[1] A 1 News item reported on a Black Ferns game, specifically their win over the Wallaroos (the Australian women’s national rugby union team) for the Laurie O’Reilly Memorial Trophy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about two Breakfast interviews discussing the Government’s decision to reduce New Zealand’s methane emissions target – first with the Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action, then 45 minutes later with New Zealand Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon. The complaint was that the interview approaches varied between the two interviewees, creating an ‘unfairness and imbalance’ for viewers. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard as significant perspectives were presented within the broadcast and both interviewees had ample opportunity to explain their positions. Further, the style and type of questions raised in each interview were a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News covering the impact of COVID-19 on attendance at Christmas celebrations around the world. The complaint was the coverage of celebrations in Bethlehem, with reference to the closure of Israel’s international airport, created the impression that Bethlehem is part of Israel. The Authority acknowledged Bethlehem is a highly contested area, but also noted the broadcast was not about the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Authority found, in the context of the broadcast, the brief segment on celebrations in Bethlehem and the simple reference to the closure of Israel’s international airport was unlikely to have misled viewers. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 27/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ADOLF SOETEMAN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

An item on 1 News covering COVID-19 vaccination mandate protests disrupting Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s engagements showed a protester claiming the Pfizer vaccination was ‘experimental until 2023’. The complainant argued the item lacked balance as it did not clarify that the views expressed by the protester were their own, or include any counter views from an expert. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not amount to a relevant ‘discussion’ of the issue which the complainant alleged was unbalanced (the safety of the Pfizer vaccine). Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Unbreakable, which featured stories about New Zealanders with disabilities, including Golriz Ghahraman MP, was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority noted it is not unbalanced to include an MP in a story, and that as a human interest piece, alternative viewpoints were not required to be presented. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Sunday item questioning what legacy could be left behind by a (now shut) chemical plant in Paritūtū, New Plymouth, which produced 2,4,5-T, containing the contaminant TCDD. The complaint was that the item breached the accuracy and balance standards as it exaggerated the harms of the chemical to people and the environment, and took insufficient care to fully investigate non-expert comments of interviewees ‘in spite of adequate explanatory reports in the public domain. ’ Noting the high public interest and value in the item overall, the Authority found the segment was clearly presented as focusing on local residents’ perspectives of and concerns about the plant; the interviewees’ comments were clearly contextualised, and the item included references to reputable reports as well as appropriate comment from an expert in the area....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp the presenter Hilary Barry welcomed a temporary presenter, Matt Chisholm, who responded by saying ‘it’s bloody good to be here’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘bloody’ breached the good taste and decency standard, finding the use of the term in the context of this programme was not inappropriate or unnecessary. The Authority has consistently found this expression to be colloquial language commonly used as an exclamation in our society. The Authority noted that Seven Sharp is aimed at adult viewers and the expression was not intended to be aggressive or pejorative. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm by the use of this term did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....