Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-122:Glendorran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-122 PDF269. 28 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-014:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-014 PDF369. 17 KB...

SummaryItems concerning a research finding that a lyprinol extract from green-lipped mussels had been shown to be effective in killing cancer cells were broadcast on TV One on 30 July 1999 on One Network News and Holmes, commencing at 6. 00 pm and 7. 00 pm respectively. It was reported that researchers believed that the compound could inhibit the spread of certain types of cancers, and that they were about to commence clinical trials. The Ministry of Health complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the items were inaccurate, unbalanced, lacking in objectivity, and distorted the research and its significance. The tone and "sheer volume of coverage" contributed to this lack of balance, it wrote. The programmes failed to make it clear that Lyprinol was a dietary supplement and therefore a product about which therapeutic claims could not be made....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Tonight – item reported on deaths of two people involved in a police pursuit – stated that 10 people in 2010 had died “as a result of patrol car pursuits” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state that police were responsible for the deaths – viewers would have understood the meaning of the reporter’s statement – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was straightforward news report – no judgement was made about the actions of the police involved in the pursuits – not unfair to the police – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

ComplaintHolmes – item about Death with Dignity Bill – man featured with motor neuron disease – wanted choice about his time of death – unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – human interest story – referred to issue of euthanasia – euthanasia canvassed in other programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Shortly before the Death with Dignity Bill was to have its first reading in Parliament, an item on Holmes featured a person dying from motor neuron disease who hoped the Bill would be passed. If the Bill was passed, the person said that he would have the right to choose the time of his death. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 July 2003. [2] D A Armstrong and P Schaab both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

ComplaintOur World: The Farm that Time Forgot – Captain’s Log – commercial break in each programme included a Toyota bugger advertisement – programme presentation – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) and standard G2 – conjunction – advertisements in context – no uphold Standard G7 – no technical deception – no uphold Standards G8 and G12 – not unsuitable at 8. 40pm – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Our World entitled The Farm that Time Forgot was broadcast by TV One starting at 8. 05pm on Saturday 28 April 2001. During a commercial break at about 8. 40pm, a Toyota advertisement containing the word "bugger" was broadcast....

ComplaintIt’s Your Money – item on two men looking for love – criticism of The Company Company Ltd, which provides organised singles events – unfair, unbalanced, inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – programme not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – Company able to respond on the programme to criticisms made – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of It’s Your Money which screened on TV2 at 8pm on 12 February 2001 was sub-titled "Looking for Love". The programme looked at the experiences of two men, each of whom had spent time and money trying to find a female partner. The programme examined the various options open to the men, such as dating agencies, internet dating, and event organisers, and explored whether clients of these organisations were getting value for money....

ComplaintBreakfast – Social commentator’s pre-Christmas reference to Jesus Christ as "a Middle Eastern carpenter who owned nothing" – insensitive and offensive to Christians FindingsStandard 6 and Guideline 6g – satire – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Comments made on Breakfast between 7. 00–9. 00am by a social commentator, Joe Bennett, were broadcast on TV One on Friday 13 December 2002. During the programme, Joe Bennett expressed the view that Jesus Christ was "a Middle Eastern carpenter who owned nothing". [2] Colleen Pollard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the timing and nature of the commentary was both insensitive and offensive to Christians....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Coronation Street – broadcast during Breakfast – contained brief image of a woman slapping a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – shot of woman slapping a man’s face was very brief – Breakfast was unclassified and targeted at adults – promo unobjectionable in this context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Breakfast was aimed at adults and any children viewing were unlikely to be doing so unsupervised – promo would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about New Zealand’s dog breeds and breeders’ ethics regarding inbreeding – reporter visited one breeder at her home – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to comment – she should have been informed that the programme would broadcast specific allegations against her – reporter’s approach was unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 29 March 2009, investigated the state of New Zealand’s pedigree dog breeds and breeding ethics in response to an earlier programme which looked at the health of Britain’s purebred dogs. [2] Included in the item was comment from a dog-owner, Chris, who owned a bulldog....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Beyond the Darklands: Antonie Dixon – case study of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon based on the recollections of friends, family, neighbours, police and others as well as analysis by psychologist – programme mentioned his marriage to the complainant and referred to her several times – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about the complainant – complainant’s children not identifiable in the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – neighbour’s comments were clearly her recollection of events – programme not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and children not treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, and in breach of privacy and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standards 4 (balance) – not upheld Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) – majority uphold Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] RT made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV One’s Sunday programme at 7. 30pm on 1 July 2007. It was alleged that the programme breached Standards 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code. [2] The complainant referred the complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

SummaryA repeat broadcast of the programme Who Dares Wins was broadcast on TV2 on 10 December 1998 at 7. 30pm. A Melbourne man responded to a dare to appear on stage with the male revue troupe Manpower. Ms Dawn Shelford of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, on behalf of the group Preserving Communication Standards. In her view the broadcast was offensive, particularly during family viewing time. In its response, TVNZ noted that the programme complained about had been the subject of an earlier complaint to the Authority which had not been upheld. It advised that the arguments it advanced then remained valid. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Shelford referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

SummaryThe film Eyes Wide Shut was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 29 July 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Trailers for the programme were shown earlier on the same day. Mr Walker and Mrs Siew complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the scenes of lovemaking and nakedness were unsuitable for television viewing, particularly at a time when children would be watching. The film had been devised to be pornographic and had been given an R18 film rating, Mr Walker wrote, but he was not aware that any warning was given by the broadcaster before the scenes were shown on television. The explicit sexual material was also unacceptable for the time band during which the trailer for the programme was placed, Mrs Siew wrote....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Serial Mom – movie – language – included repeated use of “fuck” – allegedly bad tasteFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Serial Mom, a satirical movie about a murderous suburban mother in America, was broadcast on TV2 from 10. 30pm on 26 January 2004. Early in the movie, the lead character makes an obscene telephone call. During the call the word “fuck” is spoken repeatedly and other offensive language is also used. Complaint [2] Doreen Holding complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of the word “fuck”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item examined crash of Silkair 737 in which all passengers and crew were killed – official investigation said cause unknown – decision widely criticised – view expressed by father of co-pilot that pilot deliberately crashed the plane – other comments in support – father’s theory examined fully – item advised that Indonesian Government reopened investigation and then decided not to proceed – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item omitted credible alternative theory – upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The crash of a Silkair 737 in Indonesia in 1998 was reviewed from the perspective of the father (Derek Ward) of the New Zealand co-pilot, who died in the crash, in an item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 20 June 2004....

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....