Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-002:Helm and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-002 PDF321. 84 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-095:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-095 PDF676. 46 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-004:Hamilton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-004 PDF736. 19 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-059:Auckland Women's Health Council Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-059 PDF485. 47 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-010:Burbridge and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-010 PDF356. 93 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rude Tube – series featured viral video clips from the internet – “Animal Madness” episode included a clip of a man taking “an unscheduled toilet break” in a paddock, and being chased by a donkey apparently attempting to mate with him – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – most viewers would not have been offended – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not amount to “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand – contestants were required to crawl face up between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis 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 9. 30pm on 9 September 2005. During one task, contestants were required to crawl, face up, between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear....

ComplaintOne News – report referred to film "Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me" – "shagged" – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – decline to determine Cross ReferenceDecision No: 1999-163 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast by TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 12 January 2000 described the development of a new open top sports car by Jaguar. In that context, reference was made to the film "Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me". Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that "shagged" was an offensive, aggressive and macho anti-woman term which was unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children were encouraged to watch television....

FindingsAuthority declines to accept the complaint on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction to do so. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Complaint[1] Shirish Paranjape emailed Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) on 19 January complaining about its coverage of One Day International cricket matches between South Africa and India. Mr Paranjape maintained that TVNZ’s One News programme had only included coverage of the games won by South Africa, not India, and he alleged that this was discriminatory. Broadcaster’s Response to the Complainant[2] TVNZ responded that the complaint was a matter of personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Referral to the Authority[3] Mr Paranjape asked the Authority to review TVNZ’s decision. Authority’s Determination[4] We note that Mr Paranjape’s sole complaint was that TV One did not include coverage of certain cricket matches in its One News bulletins....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-052:Collins and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-052 PDF521. 77 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-080:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-080 PDF332. 98 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on Prime Minister Bill English’s experience during Waitangi Day, including a phone call with the President of the United States of America, President Trump. During an introduction to the item, the newsreader referred to President Trump’s ‘anti-Muslim travel ban’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the newsreader’s statement was inaccurate and unbalanced. The focus of this item was not the precise terms of Executive Order 13679 or its implications, but rather Bill English’s experiences on his first Waitangi Day as Prime Minister, during which his phone discussion with President Trump took place. In this context, the newsreader’s shorthand description of the Order was acceptable. The Authority pointed out, however, that broadcasters should take care when adopting commonly used shorthand terms, as this may not always be sufficient to meet standards of accuracy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Wild Kai Legends breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The complainant submitted the pig-hunting techniques shown in the programme were not in line with good practice and may have constituted mistreatment under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. They considered showing such techniques to a likely viewership of hunting enthusiasts would encourage them to hunt in a similar way. The Authority considered, from the footage shown, there was nothing to indicate the techniques were a significant departure from generally recommended practice, nor that the pigs were subjected to undue cruelty. In any event, the broadcast could not be said to be actively encouraging or promoting the particular techniques or style of hunting. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the privacy of the child of the alleged cat killers. The accused were not named, shown, or otherwise identified in the item, so no individual, and specifically the child, could be linked to them, meaning the child was not ‘identifiable’ for the purposes of the privacy standard. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan after 30 cats went missing in past the year. A reporter travelled to Raglan and interviewed a local filmmaker who recently released a short documentary that aimed ‘to find out why it was happening and who was behind it’....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments during a documentary on New Zealand’s involvement in the World War I military campaign in Gallipoli breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, one of the presenters was shown a photograph of a woman behind bars, in the context of a conversation about prostitutes being available for troops stationed in Egypt. The presenter then made a derogatory comment about the appearance of the woman. The complainant submitted the comments made in the broadcast denigrated both women and sex workers. The Authority acknowledged that the comment regarding the woman’s appearance in particular, which also diminished the seriousness of some women’s experiences in World War I, was insensitive and unnecessary, and would be considered sexist and offensive to some viewers....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – complainants attended and participated in auction – complainants claimed that they would not be filmed – shown on programme – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 6 – irreconcilable conflict of facts as to particulars of the request not to film – decline to determine Standard 3 Guideline 3a Privacy Principle iii – no intentional intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A couple was shown making the final bid in the auction for a house during an episode of the reality series Location, Location, Location. The bid was unsuccessful as it failed to reach the reserve. The episode was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 17 July 2002. [2] BQ and CR, the couple making the bid, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....