Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes – interview with man about unproven sexual abuse when a child in the Order of St John of God – man paid $30,000 by Order on condition of confidentiality – unbalanced – unfair to Order FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – item made clear that the man’s views had been contested by Brother and there was no court case – Church spokesperson given reasonable opportunity to challenge his account – did not do so – man’s credibility left to viewer to assess – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Patrick" was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 19 June 2002....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court and sent back to the BSA to rehear: AP 99/01 PDF369. 72 KBComplaintLoud overreaching advertisements in religious programmes broadcast on Christmas Eve – breach of good tasteFindingsG2 – presence and type of advertising not an issue of broadcasting standards – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe programmes screened on TV One between 10:15pm and midnight on Christmas Eve included carols, Christmas music and Bible readings. John Watson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was offensive for the commercial breaks during these programmes to feature Boxing Day bargains and an exhortation to end prostitution. Questioning whether the complaint raised a matter of broadcasting standards, TVNZ said that it was, by law, a commercial organisation....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-170:Kent and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-170 PDF401. 5 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-058:Mental Health Foundation and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-058 PDF307. 63 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-100:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1992-100 PDF477 KB...

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb. It featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. Close-up footage, including a side-on view of part of her face (unblurred), revealed her demographic, gender, the length and colour of her hair, voice, profile of her nose, clothes, watch, a distinctive ring and the side of her glasses. The Authority found these features enabled identification of the interviewee beyond family and close friends. Their disclosure would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in her position, given she participated on the understanding she would not be identified. The Authority was not persuaded the defence of informed consent applied to the breach of the woman’s privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed ‘growing calls’ for New Zealand’s right to silence laws to be urgently changed. The complaint was the item failed to present the views of the many authorities who support the status quo, or include relevant historical context, and used unduly emotive language to advance an unbalanced narrative. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, within the period of current interest, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of views and information on the right to silence in cases of child abuse. It also found the broadcast approached this issue from a particular perspective and did not purport to be a balanced examination....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards, about an episode of Seven Sharp. The clip complained about was a joke that did not contain any profane or sexually explicit material. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial and did not warrant consideration. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial)...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint concerning a remark on 1 News about Pasifika people having a sense of comfort when dealing with clinicians and other staff who look like them. The complainant alleged this was racist. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it concerned an interpretation of the remark that no reasonable viewer would reach. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

As part of a news item on ‘main developments overnight’ in the war between Russia and Ukraine, a clip was shown where the presenter stated ‘This is footage we’re seeing from Ukraine, a Russian tank in the capital of Kyiv swerving to drive over the top of a car with someone inside. ’ The complainant alleged this was inaccurate, submitting it was actually a Ukrainian anti-aircraft vehicle which lost control and swerved into the vehicle. The Authority found that the exact type of military vehicle involved in the incident was not material to the broadcast and the accuracy standard did not apply to this point. In terms of whether the vehicle was attributable to Russian or Ukrainian forces, and whether the collision was deliberate, given conflicting reports it was unclear whether the broadcast was misleading on these points....

The Authority has declined to determine three complaints about different programmes broadcast on TVNZ channels on 4 July 2022 as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, and other issues raised have recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive & Disturbing Content; Discrimination & Denigration...

An item on 1 News reported on the outcome of the US defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance by favouring Heard’s perspective and that certain statements were inaccurate or misleading. It found the balance standard did not apply as the complainant’s concerns did not relate to the omission of perspectives concerning a controversial issue of public importance as required. In any event, reasonable efforts were made to present Depp’s perspective. In relation to the statements that were allegedly inaccurate or misleading, the Authority found they were either materially accurate, or distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

ComplaintTeachers – promo – reference to periods, sanitary towels and tampons – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – time of broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the series Teachers was broadcast during the screening on TV One of the Led Zeppelin concert The Song Remains the Same, which started at 10. 30pm on Saturday 5 April 2003. [2] G E Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the references to periods, sanitary towels and tampons in the promo, broadcast without warning, were offensive. [3] Initially TVNZ treated the complaint, in error, as an informal one. When it responded to the formal complaint, TVNZ contended that the references were not inherently offensive and, furthermore, had been broadcast more than two hours after the 8. 30pm watershed. It declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....

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…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – stated that animal welfare group had gone “undercover” on a farm to investigate mistreated pigs and that it had gained access through an unlocked door – showed footage obtained by the group of sick and injured animals – allegedly in breach of law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not show the group breaking into the farm – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law by screening the footage – public interest in showing mistreatment of animals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Friday 23 July, reported on new footage of pigs at a Levin farm that had been the subject of a previous TVNZ broadcast on animal welfare....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained footage of bare breasts and women in their underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information and children’s interests standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of semi-naked women were not sexualised or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item conveyed a positive message – item did not denigrate women – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – programme did not use subliminal perception – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme classified PGR – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....