Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes Leaders’ Debate – Christian Heritage Party not invited – unbalanced – partial – unfair FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – editorial discretion exercised in balanced and fair way – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaders of eight political parties participated in the Holmes Leaders’ Debate broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 15 July 2002. The participants were chosen on the basis that the parties were represented in the outgoing Parliament. The leaders were questioned about aspects of their party’s policies. [2] The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about its exclusion from the Leaders’ Debate and the following Minor Leaders’ Debate. It said that the broadcaster had acted unfairly in not treating all political parties in the same way....

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 How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Radio – Nine to Noon – interview with a grandmother campaigning against prescription of the drug Ritalin – grandmother not medically qualified made allegedly inaccurate statements – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as it failed to present expert medical opinionFindings Principle 4 (balance) – personal perspective – balanced mainstream view – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not relevant – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – mixture of fact and opinion – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Authority unable to establish number of people being prescribed Ritalin in New Zealand – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on damage caused by Christchurch earthquake – showed footage of poultry shed – news reader stated “And this is a destroyed battery hen farm, home to 26,000 chickens. Animal rights activists say that up to a third of them were trapped and suffocating” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement a material point of fact – said that chickens were “suffocating” not that they had “suffocated” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and farm not identified – item did not reflect badly on complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 7 September 2010, reported on the large scale damage caused by the Christchurch earthquake....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-127 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK KEARNEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Native Affairs – item looked at the work Te Whanau Manaaki O Manawatu Trust was doing for Māori suffering from alcohol, drug and violence issues – item contained interviews with two people who were part of the trust’s recovery programmes – item contained footage of gang members – presenter made various statements about the interviewees – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about being drug and alcohol-free related to the parties, not Mr B and Ms D themselves – statement relating to the trust’s DHB funding inaccurate – action taken by the broadcaster to rectify the inaccuracy appropriate in the circumstances – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals and organisations not communities – not unfair for the broadcaster to use library footage of gangs – 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 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)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Thousand Apologies – sketch comedy lampooning the pan-Asian experience in contemporary New Zealand – allegedly denigratory Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – programme clearly satirical and intended to be humorous – skits did not encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of A Thousand Apologies, a television sketch comedy that addressed the diversity of the pan-Asian contemporary experience in New Zealand and lampooned stereotypes and situations, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Friday 12 September 2008. [2] One of the skits in the episode involved a man being interviewed about his experience with one airline....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA teenager who was reported in a 3 News item as “believed” to have died in a Christchurch house fire (which killed her father, her father’s wife, her grandmother and a boarder), complained that the item was inaccurate, and had “shocked, upset and angered” many of those who knew her. She claimed the item was also unfair, and breached her father’s privacy as well as her own. The Broadcaster’s ResponseCanWest argued that the item was accurate because the report said the identities of the four dead were “believed to be 58-year-old Japanese immigrant Junichi Tomonaga and his wife, his teenage daughter and his mother or mother-in-law”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a church’s campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word – “Jesus” and “Christ” repeated a number of times as examples of the language complained about – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – used as an expression of dismay and surprise – accepted colloquial use – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed Standard 6 (fairness) – Pastor Driscoll treated fairly in the item – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up at 7pm on TV One on 12 October 2005 reported that the Rangiora New Life Church had launched a campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Summer Report – panel discussion about healthy eating and exercise – reference to healthy food pyramid – advice given that not all fats were bad – unsaturated fat preferred to saturated fats – item alleged to be inaccurate, unfair and unbalancedFindings Principle 4 (balance – the safety of trans-fats not a controversial issue dealt with in the broadcast – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – trans-fats peripheral – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – trans-fats not the topic of discussion – not upheldObservation Authority may decline to determine further complaints from Ms James when complaint only about peripheral matter dealt with in broadcastThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A panel discussion about healthy eating and exercise was broadcast as part of Summer Report on National Radio between 8. 00 to10. 00am on Thursday 8 January 2004....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court AP46/02 PDF1. 3 MBComplaint20/20 – "Paradise Lost" – item on child prostitution in Fiji – breach of children’s privacy – unfair depiction of child victim – discrimination on account of sex, race and ageFindingsPrivacy – privacy principle (i) – public disclosure of private facts about children – highly offensive and objectionable facts – no public interest defence under privacy principle (vi) – upholdStandard G4 – child sex abuse victim treated unfairly – upholdStandard G13 – high threshold – no upholdCross-referenceDecision No. 1999-125–137OrderBroadcast of statementCosts to complainant of $463. 50This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "Paradise Lost", an item on 20/20, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 15 July 2001....

ComplaintCrimebusters – piss and shit – offensive language – associating faeces with stolen food – sensational – identified alleged thief who soiled himself – unfair –alleged shoplifter had been humiliated by advising that he had soiled himself – Standard 6 and Guideline 6f – upheld by broadcaster Findings(1) Standard 1 – colloquial – context – borderline – no uphold (2) Action taken on Standard 6, Guideline 6f – action taken insufficient – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Crimebusters looked at shoplifting and some security operations to catch shoplifters. One segment dealt with a man in a supermarket caught hiding two cans of ham in his trousers. It was reported that he had soiled himself when questioned by the shop’s security staff, and the evidence was found on the cans when they were recovered....