Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9. 30pm on 22 June 2005. The series was set in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown), and was centred around a young priest called Father Nicholas, a group of corrupt cardinals and a child-like Pope character. [2] During the episode on 22 June 2005, Father Nicholas became a wrestling hero after accidentally knocking out pro-wrestler “Ivan the Invincible”....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – commentator (Hana O’Regan) compared the impact of views of the leader of the National Party (Dr Brash) to those of Hitler – allegedly offensive, irresponsible, unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings: Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – another perspective on extensively debated controversial issue – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – focus of comparison on process, not policy – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – limited factual comparison accurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Commentator Hana O’Regan was interviewed by the presenter (Linda Clark) on National Radio’s Nine to Noon between 9. 54 and 10. 00am on 11 February 2004....

ComplaintHolmes – Prostitution Reform Bill – interview with Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP who abstained from voting – challenged on decision to abstain – blamed for passage of Bill – held up to ridicule and contempt – unfairFindingsStandard 4 – MP given right to reply to criticism – no uphold Standard 6 – as with Standard 4 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Prostitution Reform Bill was passed in Parliament by one vote on 25 June 2003. In an item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on Thursday 26 June, comment was made that the Bill would not have been passed had Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP not abstained. Mr Choudhary was interviewed regarding his abstention....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on AM breached several standards including accuracy. The broadcast attributed several acts of violence against police, during the February–March 2022 protest and occupation of Parliament grounds, to protesters. The complainant stated there was no evidence the events occurred, and that there was no evidence the violence was caused by protesters. The complainant also submitted the broadcast implied a reporter was ‘manhandled’ on Parliament grounds when in fact she was on Lambton Quay. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading and the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Morning Report with Sue Grey, lawyer for the parents of a baby whose urgent heart surgery had been delayed due to the parents’ concerns regarding blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19. The essence of the complaints was that the host did not listen to Grey, constantly interrupted her, did not allow her to answer the questions, and pushed his personal views. The Authority found the interview did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with Grey on this subject, noting in particular that Grey was making claims contrary to public health advice, and was able to put forward key points in the course of the eight-minute interview. Therefore the broadcast overall did not result in any unfairness to Grey....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a news report covering the US Democratic Convention breached standards by referring to then US President Donald Trump as ‘Trump’ or ‘Donald Trump’ rather than with the title ‘President’. The broadcast was fair to Mr Trump, considering his position and profile as a politician and public figure. It was not misleading to refer to Mr Trump as ‘Donald Trump’ and the report was unlikely to cause widespread offence. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to Mr Trump as an individual. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and OrderIntroduction[1] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged ‘bullying, deception and targeting the vulnerable’. It was reported that the Israeli women staffing the kiosks were working illegally, without work permits. The item was broadcast on TV3 on 1 July 2014....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-023 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUG BATH of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography – showed two men standing at a vending machine – face of the accused not shown, side profile of the other man was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – item implied complainant was defendant on child pornography charges – incorrect – seriously unfair – upheldOrderCosts to the Crown of $3000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 at 6pm on 7 March 2005 reported on the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography via the internet. The reporter said that due to a judge’s ruling, 3 News was unable to name the alleged offender....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Groove in the Park – text messages ran across the bottom of screen during broadcast of live music event on Waitangi Day – contained content which the complainant found offensive – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, contrary to children's interests, denigratory and in breach of promotion of liquor standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – use of expletives in graphic sentences was contrary to the observance of good taste and decency – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – text messages encouraged denigration of and discrimination against sections of the community based on race – upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was G-rated and children likely to be watching on a public holiday – content highly unsuitable for children – upheld Standard 11 (liquor) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussed Marc Ellis’s promotional stunt for his new business which involved discharging explosives on Rangitoto Island – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – not clear from the item that the stunt amounted to criminal activity – item did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify which individuals or organisations were treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 20/20, entitled “Guerrilla Marc[eting]”, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Thursday 15 November 2007, discussed the first major guerrilla marketing stunt that had taken place in New Zealand....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Paakiwaha, host Willie Jackson interviewed the Head of News and Current Affairs at Māori Television about the recent resignation of senior staff, among other things. Mihingarangi Forbes and Annabelle Lee, two of the individuals referred to, complained that the interview was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority upheld aspects of the accuracy complaint, as Mr Jackson claimed Ms Forbes leaked information to media (which was also unfair) and declined an invitation to appear on the programme, which was inaccurate. The Authority also found the item was unfair to Ms Forbes, Ms Lee and another former staff member as the discussion reflected negatively on their professional ability and they were not given a timely and relevant opportunity to respond or give comment....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – item reported on “An Anglican Minister who has been suspended after he removed children from a youth camp… to protect them from a man he believed was a sexual predator” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not have a sufficient foundation for broadcasting serious allegations – broadcaster did not provide any details about corroborating evidence to support allegations – church was provided with a fair opportunity to comment but the item failed to adequately present the church’s response – church and Bishop treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Authority not in a position to determine whether impression of alleged offending was misleading – matters more appropriately addressed as issues of fairness – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of…...

Mary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and stood aside from this decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – follow-up item on the use of sow crates in the pig farming industry – interviewed woman planning a whistle-blowing campaign offering rewards to farm workers for exposing cruel farming practices, and CEO of the New Zealand Pork Industry Board – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence that interview with New Zealand Pork Industry Board CEO was unfairly edited – as industry advocate he should expect robust questioning on these issues – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the comment ‘Australia mugs the Black Caps’ breached the fairness, discrimination and denigration, and balance standards. The comment was typical of sports commentary and was not unfair to the Australian cricket team. As it was directed at the Australian cricket team, rather than a particular section of the community, the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. The balance standard also did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...