Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on group of duck hunters – hunters shown drinking alcohol and using firearms – brands of alcohol visible – man shown taking his pants off and diving onto a blow-up doll – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – item contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of man with blow-up doll and mixing of firearms and alcohol strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard…...

L M Loates was Acting Chairperson in S R Maling's absence. SummaryThe series The New Zealand Wars examined the reasons for, and the outcome of, the battles between groups of Maori and Pakeha particularly during the period 1850–1870. The programme was presented by Professor James Belich and was based on his book with the same name. The series was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on five consecutive Monday evenings between 8 June and 6 July 1998. Mr Haggett complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the series among other matters presented "beliefs" as fact, and that it was biased and racist in suggesting that the "innocent" Maori was butchered by "an evil white man". Emphasising that the series was the "authored" work of an eminent historian whose views had been captured accurately in the series, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on a threat made against MP Sue Bradford that was published under the username GarfieldNZ on the website Twitter – news reporter tracked down the individual who owned the username – contained footage of reporter knocking on the front door of the individual’s house and talking to him about the threat – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item showed the wording of the Twitter message – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of door-stepping did not disadvantage the complainant – complainant’s response provided to viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on judicial review proceedings concerning the Parole Board’s decision to release convicted rapist Peter McNamara after serving one third of his sentence – contained footage of Mr McNamara on his driveway and of a child getting into his car – item stated that Mr McNamara had “smuggled” his semen out of prison – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – child not identified in the item – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “smuggled” accurate – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr McNamara and the child were treated fairly – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 (fairness) This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – cure for acne – drug identified – side effects not reported – misleading – unbalanced – partial FindingsStandard G6 – not controversial issue to which the standard applies – decline to determine; other standards not relevant ObservationIssue to be considered when free-to-air code is revised This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The availability of an effective treatment for acne was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 23 March 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. A dermatologist and a doctor were interviewed, as well as two young people who had both been successfully treated by a named drug. The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd (PHARMAC) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was misleading and unbalanced. In particular it expressed its concern that the broadcaster had been used to promote a prescription medicine....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989George FM – ran a competition to win $2,500 worth of travel – complainant qualified for entry into the competition but was not included in the final prize draw – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to on the day of the prize draw so Standard 6 does not apply – unfortunate that a mistake was made but the broadcaster handled the situation appropriately – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] Between 4 and 8 October 2010, George FM ran a competition with a chance to win $2,500 worth of travel....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the release of the Government’s Budget that day – discussed impact of the budget on a range of New Zealanders including three “high earners” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – brief references to the incomes of three high earners did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements about the impact of the budget on three high earners were not material points of fact – viewers would have understood that the point being made was that they would have more money each week than lower earners – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – references to incomes of high earners did not result in them being treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item about two young New Zealanders who won prizes in an essay competition on issues of public concern – one essay about the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – essay competition was the item’s focus, not mussel industry – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – opinions not facts about mussel industry advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Two young New Zealand conservationists who had won prices in an essay competition were interviewed in One News broadcast on TV One beginning at 6. 00pm on 18 July 2004. One had written an essay on the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment, focusing on the Marlborough Sounds....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News segment called “The Week in Politics” – reference to Dr Don Brash (Leader of the National Party) travelling in a police convoy from Parliament to the Wellington Stadium – comment by presenter that he “could have walked, the lazy bugger eh! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – word “bugger” not in breach of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment not statement of fact – accuracy standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment called “The Week in Politics” was included in 3 News, broadcast on 23 July 2004, at around 6. 30pm....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reporting on an iceberg close to colliding with an ice-shelf in Antarctica – size of the iceberg incorrectly reported as 2000 cubic metres, rather than kilometres – broadcaster upheld breach of Standard 5 but declined to broadcast a correction – complainant dissatisfied with action takenFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – minor error – other descriptions in the item clarified magnitude of iceberg – action taken by broadcaster sufficient – future similar referrals by complainant potentially vexatious. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on One News at 6pm on 14 January 2005 reported that a huge iceberg was close to colliding with the ice-shelf on the coast of Antarctica. The item reported that the iceberg contained 2000 cubic metres of water....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Breakfast bulletin reported that Auckland's Okahu Bay would be closed to the public for one day due to a private event held by local iwi Ngāti Whātua Orākei. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, unfair and encouraged discrimination by omitting the views of Ngāti Whātua and implying their actions were 'wrong'. It would have been preferable to include comment from Ngāti Whātua in the initial broadcast, and by failing to fully explain why Okahu Bay was closed, viewers could have been left with an ill-informed, negative view of Ngāti Whātua. However comment was included in later TVNZ broadcasts the same day which mitigated any potential unfairness. Nothing in the item encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Ngāti Whātua and/or Māori....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-055:John Carter MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-055 PDF359. 68 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora suggested that fraud in the ‘Māori sector’ is often treated differently to other fraud. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the programme breached standards because the panellists should have made reference to the ‘2004 Feltex IPO fraud’ as an example of ‘non-Māori fraud’. The complainant’s concerns were matters of personal preference and editorial discretion, and the Authority’s decisions on previous complaints should have put him notice of the likely outcome of this complaint. Declined to Determine: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During a panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora, one of the topics was the criticism levelled at a Native Affairs investigation into the potential misappropriation of public funds by the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-159:Greenpeace New Zealand Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-159 PDF1. 53 MB...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2017-485-71. 12 MBSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Paul Henry about Independence Day celebrations in the USA featured an interview with the USA’s Ambassador to New Zealand. Prior to the interview, Paul Henry referred to the USA claiming ‘its independence from England’. He later quoted Margaret Thatcher, referring to her as the ‘Prime Minister of England’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Henry’s statements were inaccurate and discriminatory in that he should have referred to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, rather than England. The item was focused primarily on Independence Day celebrations and the statements would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a 1 News Coming Up teaser, presenter Simon Dallow referred to an upcoming item on 1 News, saying: ‘Plus a warning for mums to be; research showing C-section babies face long-term health issues. ’ The full item reported on research findings from the University of Edinburgh that babies born through caesarean section were ‘far more likely to suffer from obesity and asthma’, but went on to explain that it was not the caesarean section which caused the health problems, as these could be due to the mother’s health, and further research is needed. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the teaser was sensationalist and misleading, in breach of the accuracy standard....

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 the Government’s intention to remove a benefit reduction sanction that can apply to sole beneficiary parents who do not name the remaining parent. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced and misleading, as the report omitted details about the exemptions that can apply to the sanction, including that a parent will not have to name the other parent where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence. The Authority found that the focus of this item was the Government’s desire to remove the sanction. The omission of details about the exemptions was therefore not material to the overall focus of the item, and did not mislead viewers....