Search Rapua

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported that a 40-year-old man had been accused of knowingly infecting people with HIV – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – identifiable to limited group of people who had seen the website or the photos – allegation of criminal behaviour not a private fact – HIV-positive status normally a private fact but public interest defence applied – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high level of public interest especially in alerting those who could identify the man – guideline relating to discrimination and denigration not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast at 7pm on TV One on 15 May 2009, was introduced as follows: What kind of person knowingly infects lovers with the HIV virus?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – contained conversations of a sexual nature and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 25 January 2008. The episode included conversations of a sexual nature, which came about by the host asking questions of the four contestants and then commenting on their answers. [2] An example of one such exchange was as follows: Host: (asking one of the three female contestants) Who out of Sharon and Sue has had sex with their partner’s big toe?...

ComplaintAssignment – mental health system – complainant a mental health campaigner – introduced as mother of schizophrenic – prior agreement not to refer to her family – unfair – breach of privacy – upheld by TVNZ only as unfair FindingsPrinciple 3 and Guideline 3a – privacy principle (i) – disclosure of mental illness highly offensive and objectionable – breach of mother’s and son’s privacy – uphold OrdersCompensation of $1500 to the complainant; Contribution to the payment of CD’s expenses of $750. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Issues about the mental health system in New Zealand were addressed in Assignment broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 7 November 2002. The complainant is a mental health campaigner and agreed to participate so long as there was no reference to her family....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Goober Brothers – part of Studio 2 – inventors of “Ja-Handal” – man performing handstands – dog urinated on man’s face – allegedly offensive and not in children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – type of humour depicted appeals to children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Goober Brothers was shown as part of the children’s programme Studio 2. It was a New Zealand-made series of two-minute items featuring mad scientists who come up with weird inventions. The “Ja-Handal”, a jandal for hands, was the invention shown on the episode broadcast on TV2 at 3. 20pm on 16 April 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s editorial comments following the item were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. In making its decision, the Authority acknowledged the influential position of the presenters, but found that alternative views were conveyed during the item and in subsequent items during the period of current interest. The presenters’ comments were their opinion and analysis of the issues discussed, rather than statements of fact, so they were not subject to the accuracy standard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured the story of a man who, due to delays in having minor surgery for a skin cancer cyst, suffered severe health problems. The man said that ‘[The cyst] went from less than a centimetre to 35 centimetres’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the description of the cyst as ‘35 centimetres’ was inaccurate. The exact measurement was not a material point of fact in the item, and it was clearly the man’s own recollection of his experience. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured the story of a man who, due to delays in having minor surgery for a skin cancer cyst, had his eye and part of his face removed and was given a terminal diagnosis....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – guest presenter commented, in relation to web video of children’s television presenter Roger Waters, “suddenly there’s LSD in the water” – allegedly in breach of law and order, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – presenter’s comment was brief and light-hearted – viewers would not have been encouraged to break the law – children would not have understood the comment – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comment would not have distressed or alarmed viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – comment was silly and oblique – children would not have appreciated its meaning, and would not have been encouraged to take LSD – 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. ]During the National Party's closing address, footage was shown of Prime Minister John Key with US President Barack Obama and the Queen. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the use of this footage was illegal and breached standards, on the basis the complaint was trivial and did not raise any broadcasting standards issues in the context of a political broadcast carrying high public interest. Declined to determine: Election Programmes Subject to Other CodesIntroduction[1] During the National Party's closing address the night before the 2014 general election, brief footage was shown of Prime Minister John Key with United States President Barack Obama and Queen Elizabeth II. [2] Steve Curtis lodged an election programme complaint directly with the Authority, under Standard E1 of the Election Programmes Code (election programmes subject to other Codes)....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-046–051:Whyte and 5 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-046–051 PDF1. 94 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on One News reported on overseas studies showing that even low levels of air pollution can be harmful. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment that ‘the European Union’s recommended standard… is even more stringent than the standard here’, and the accompanying graphic, were inaccurate. Taken in the context of the whole item, the statement was sufficiently clarified so viewers would not have been misled. The key message was that air pollution is a serious problem impacting on public health, so New Zealand should consider adopting standards applied in other countries, not currently applied here. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction[1] An item on One News reported on overseas studies showing that even low levels of air pollution can be harmful....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-168:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-168 PDF319. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-054:Young and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-054 PDF399. 53 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 130/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANCIS FISCHER of Dipton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Q+A, broadcast on TVNZ 1, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which included questions about the Government’s COVID-19 response, leaking of information regarding the ‘Green School’ funding, New Zealand First Party funding, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a tax-payer funded trip of Mr Peters’ two friends to Antarctica. The complainant argued the interview breached the fairness standard because the broadcaster did not give Mr Peters notice of his proposed contribution regarding the various topics raised. The Authority found the wide-ranging and robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected for a high profile and senior political figure like Mr Peters on matters of significant public interest in the lead up to a general election. Not Upheld: Fairness...

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....