Search Rapua

SummaryA nightmare housemoving experience was related by a woman featured in a programme entitled "My House, My Castle" broadcast on TV2 on 19 July 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The programme was previewed in the days preceding the broadcast. Michael Bott, on behalf of Brittons Housemovers (Wellington) Ltd, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that footage showing a truck belonging to the company was used to illustrate the "housemoving story from hell". In fact, Brittons Housemovers had had no connection with the move, he wrote. The company cited a number of broadcasting standards which it contended were breached by the programme and the promos. In its response, TVNZ explained that the shots of the housemoving truck were archival shots which had been used to illustrate the story. It maintained that the company could not have been identified from that footage....

ComplaintHolmes – research findings on third generation contraceptive pill – danger to women of blood clotting – presenter told users to throw their pills away – inaccurate – unbalanced – caused unnecessary panic, alarm FindingsStandard G1 – no inaccuracy – no upholdStandard G6 – key issues isolated – opportunity for response given – majority no upholdStandard G16 – health message presented – focus on individual stories – style of programme – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The release of research findings detailing the risks to women of taking the third generation contraceptive pill was the topic of a Holmes item broadcast on 16 June between 7. 00-7. 30pm. The presenter suggested that those who were taking several named varieties of the pills should throw them out....

...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-086 Dated the 6th day of August 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An item on the Larry Williams Programme focussed on the resignation from the Alliance Party of Mr Frank Grover MP. The item included interviews with Mr Jim Anderton, the leader of the Alliance Party, and with Mr Grover. It was broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 11 June 1999, commencing at about 6. 15 pm. Both John Bryant, the Executive Director of the Christian Heritage Party, and Adam Claasen of Christchurch complained to The Radio Network Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was untruthful, unfair, deceptive and unbalanced. Mr Grover had agreed to the interview on the basis that Mr Anderton was not "on the call at the same time", they wrote, but by including Mr Anderton in the interview, the host had breached that agreement....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA talkback – interview with managing director of Moshims Discount House Ltd about allegations that expired food items were sent as aid to flood victims in Fiji – after interview, a listener phoned in alleging that Discount House sold food that had passed its expiry date – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcast not a factual programme or current affairs – comprised of opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond to claims – complainant and his company treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

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 1989Eating Media Lunch – footage from British reality series Sex Inspectors included a couple engaged in various sexual acts – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification and programme information standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – warning sufficient – not upheld Standards 2–6 and 8 – complaint based on mistake – not relevant – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 14 December 2004 the presenter of Eating Media Lunch on TV2 introduced a segment which was to feature in the following episode. Brief footage from a British reality series called Sex Inspectors was shown, including a couple engaged in various sexual acts....

ComplaintMorning Report – audio of a woman giving birth – preceded item about maternity services – gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 1 and Guideline 1a; Principle 5 and Guideline 5c & Principle 7 and Guideline 7d – not socially irresponsible – not gratuitous – no warning necessary – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Morning Report which discussed the lack of maternity services in Queenstown was broadcast on National Radio on Monday 13 January 2003. The item was introduced with a brief sound effect of a woman giving birth. [2] James Cone complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the audio was gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible. [3] In response, RNZ said that the audio was neither socially irresponsible, nor was it intended to cause alarm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved a man with extensive burn injuries seeking revenge on his victims by burning them alive – showed victims being covered in petrol and set on fire – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and violence FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – high degree of explicit violence and disturbing themes constituted strong adult material that warranted an AO 9. 30pm classification and later time of broadcast – programme incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – episode contained explicit violence – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – level of violence in 8. 30pm broadcast was unacceptable in context, despite AO classification – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Two and a Half Men – promo broadcast at 2. 10pm contained sexual innuendo and the word “penis” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo screened during chat show targeted at adults and in AO timeslot – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – host programme, while rated G, was not targeted at children and broadcast in AO time-band – sexual content was sufficiently inexplicit and promo light-hearted and humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – host programme targeted at adults and broadcast during AO timeslot – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp on Valentine’s Day reported on a woman who had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item glamorised theft and was unfair to the man. It was clear from the item that the woman had given the man ample opportunity to retrieve the sunglasses, and he was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgramingIntroduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp, broadcast on 14 February 2014, included an ‘anti-Valentine’s Day’ story where a woman had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-066:...

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....