Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South – presenter visited lighthouse on Dog Island – told story about lighthouse keeper who “apparently fell to his death” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – factual programme – story was presented as gossip or an anecdote – prefaced with “apparently” and “it appears” – not material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The first episode of South, a programme featuring presenter Marcus Lush exploring Southland, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Sunday 16 August 2009. [2] Mr Lush was shown setting out on his journey, and travelling first to Dog Island off the bottom of the South Island....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about Work and Income using taxpayers’ money to pay, on behalf of beneficiaries, the penalty fees incurred in retrieving their impounded cars – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate statements – opinion of interviewees that WINZ was helping beneficiaries to commit crimes was not adopted by the reporter as a statement of fact – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – conflicting accounts about events on the day of the broadcast – Authority cannot determine whether the reporter made reasonable efforts, or reasonable opportunities were given, to present significant points of view about whether WINZ was assisting illegal activity – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standard 6 (fairness) – direct conflict in recollection of events – Authority cannot determine whether MSD was informed about the angle of the story or…...

Complaint3 News – complainants included one of two survivors of an air crash in which eight people died – message left on answerphone reporting progress and advising that they were not giving interviews to media – answerphone message omitting reference to interviews broadcast as part of news item – breach of privacy – unfair FindingsStandard 3, Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) – answerphone message aimed at all callers – information was released to the public – no intrusion in the nature of prying – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6e – time of stress for the complainants – high public interest – contents of message in public arena – use of message not insensitive or unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary An item entitled "Prisoner of Law" examined the situation of a solo New Zealand mother who had given birth to a child in Sydney. It explained that in order to maintain custody of her child, she was required by the Australian Family Court to live in Sydney. The programme was broadcast on TV3’s 20/20 at 7. 30pm on 13 June 1999. Mr Tichbon complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced. It contravened the standards, he wrote, as the father was not asked for his perspective. Furthermore, Mr Tichbon added, the father was secretly filmed at the handover of the child. Explaining that the intention of the item was to illustrate the mother’s predicament and to question the law, TV3 denied that the father was vilified or portrayed as a bad father....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – update on a 2005 story about a Chinese family – father had been deported and mother was fighting a deportation order – interviewed the couple’s three children – daughter was shown distressed and in tears – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster failed to use discretion and sensitivity when interviewing child about a distressing situation – child was exploited – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 14 November 2006, discussed a long-running court case involving a Chinese couple who had come to New Zealand on a working visa more than a decade ago....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on Paris Hilton going to jail – presenter made comments about Ms Hilton and threw a box of tissues over her shoulder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, fairness, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter acted in a light-heated and off-the-cuff manner – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter expressed her own opinion in a light-hearted way – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item would not have disturbed child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – showed magazine photograph which reported that celebrities Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson had moved into a flat together – photograph included women’s Chihuahua dogs – presenter said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together” – allegedly offensive, unfair and deceptiveFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10. 00pm on 5 April 2005, referred to an issue of New Zealand Woman’s Weekly featuring a photograph of celebrity flatmates Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson, and their pet dogs. The presenter referred to the dogs and said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together”. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unfair to the named celebrities....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Prince Philip’s birthday – host noted that the Prince had criticised a number of ethnic and social groups over the years – host mentioned the right to freedom of expression – showed a picture of Prince Philip defaced with a moustache and horns, with a speech bubble saying “I’m a dork” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – innocuous prank – raised no issue of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Prince Philip – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on a disqualification hearing for a greyhound trainer was inaccurate and unfair. The complainant argued the broadcast’s description of the facts leading to two charges against the trainer (related to failing to ensure the welfare of two dogs), was misleading. The complainant also argued it was unfair to comment on the trainer’s potential disqualification sentence before it had been finalised, impeding the trainer’s ‘right to a fair trial’. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading overall, or reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy, and did not give rise to any unfairness to the trainer. The public interest in the story outweighed the low risk of harm. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Dasam Granth Da Sach. During the programme the host made comments about a well-known female Sikh preacher, including that she should marry a Taksali (traditionally trained Sikh) rather than a Jāgaruka (enlightened Sikh), because she supports the ideology of the former, and because husbands ‘in our society’ resort to beating when offended by their wives. The host also used words that can carry sexual connotations but, in the specific context of the broadcast, were unlikely to do so. The Authority acknowledged the potentially offensive nature of the comments to some people, but found overall the potential harm arising was not at a level justifying regulatory intervention or restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Privacy, Fairness...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The documentary Swipe with Caution investigated the use of online dating apps, including interviews with relevant experts and dating app users, as well as detailing specific case studies. One of those case studies involved the complainant, who was convicted of sexual violation and assault after meeting with Ms X through a dating app. Ms X, through an actor, retold her story of the night. The complainant considered the broadcast was inaccurate and portrayed him unfairly. He argued Ms X’s recollections were presented as matters of proven fact but were inconsistent with the agreed facts identified in the Court’s sentencing decision. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the particular segment had high public value, as it involved a survivor telling her story, and was otherwise materially accurate....

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint from environmental group Friends of the Earth (NZ) about an interview between Saturday Morning host Kim Hill and former Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman was not upheld. Ms Hill interviewed Sir Peter about his time as Chief Science Advisor and a wide range of issues, including how societies respond to scientific research, the role of science in government, activism within the scientific community and the criminal justice system. During the interview, Sir Peter made comments about the safety and history of genetic modification. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were inaccurate or that the interview was unbalanced or unfair. The Authority found Sir Peter’s comments were not statements of fact, noting they were clearly established as being from Sir Peter’s perspective throughout the interview....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Over two evenings, on 20 and 21 January 2018, Newshub reported on the delayed launch of a rocket from the Māhia Peninsula, due to a boat being in the exclusion zone around the launch site. The first item strongly implied that Hastings District Councillor Damon Harvey was responsible for the delayed launch, referring to a tweet, featuring a photo of the launch site, that the reporter said was tweeted by Mr Harvey ‘around the same time’ as the launch delay. The second item included a short comment from an interview with Mr Harvey. The Authority found parts of these broadcasts were inaccurate and misleading, and were unfair to Mr Harvey....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that two episodes of The Box Seat breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Pay TV Code of Broadcasting Standards. The Authority found that the segments about blood spinning in harness racing covered a controversial issue of public importance but failed to include balancing views on the issue being discussed or indicate that the programmes were presented from a specific perspective. The Authority also found that, although the broadcasts did not contain any specific factual inaccuracies, the omission of alternative perspectives and information on the safety and propriety of blood spinning meant that the broadcast was misleading as a whole. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard. The Authority considered the publication of this decision sufficient to censure the breach of standards by the broadcaster and made no orders. Upheld: Balance, Accuracy. Not upheld: Fairness. No orders...

Complaint 20/20 – "The Goons" – item about Christchurch Prison Emergency Response Unit – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandards 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracies (i) did not "order" penis incident; (ii) not found guilty of 21 breaches of code of conduct – uphold on these 2 points – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – complainant no opportunity to present views – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "The Goons", an item on 20/20, was broadcast by TV3 at 7. 30pm on 9 June 2002. The item investigated the activities of the Christchurch Prison Emergency Response Unit (ERU), referred to by some as the "Goon Squad". [2] Doug Smith complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item contained a number of inaccurate statements, and was unbalanced....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – property sale – gratuitous exposure of the vendors’ relationship – allegedly insensitive and unfair FindingsStandard 6 – argument pivotal to transaction– no adverse reflection on complainant – not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode in the series Location, Location, Location was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Monday 7 July 2003. One part of the programme featured Mr and Mrs Hepworth attempting to sell their home. [2] Mrs Hepworth complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unfair to her by including an argument between her and her husband that was incidental to the programme. [3] TVNZ maintained that it could not identify any aspect of the programme where the complainant had been treated unfairly. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint....