Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-029:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-029 PDF815. 18 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-044:Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-044 PDF609. 76 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-013:Papprill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-013 PDF560. 09 KB...

Summary "Role Model", a music video for a song by Eminem was screened on Video Hits – New Releases, a music video programme. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 11. 00am on 30 October 1999. Ms Watkins complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the Video Hits – New Releases programme during which the "Role Model" video screened was incorrectly classified PGR, as it contained language and imagery which was potentially harmful to younger viewers. In its response to the complaint, TVNZ wrote that it believed it had properly classified the programme PGR. In its view, it would be "absurd" to restrict such music video shows to AO audiences because the age group attracted to this sort of music started "a number of years earlier than 18". TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this decision. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item focused on an investigation of alleged dangerous driving practices in the New Zealand Army – contained interviews with an army driving instructor Greg McQuillan and Colonel Paul van Den Broek – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – NZDF given adequate opportunity to respond to allegations and present the Army's perspective – broadcaster provided the necessary significant viewpoints on the topic within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment, "A licence to kill?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on a study into the effects of 1080 poison on native robins – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – the use of 1080 as a method for pest control in New Zealand is a controversial issue of public importance – use of 1080 has been the subject of ongoing debate and the item contributed a new development in the debate – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of arguments on both sides of the debate – significant viewpoints were presented in the programme to an extent that was appropriate given the nature of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccurate headlines did not form part of television broadcast so outside our jurisdiction – reporter’s statements were not material to the focus of…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-176:R and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-176 PDF497. 89 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-016:Hon Richard Prebble MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-016 PDF2. 82 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-057:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-057 PDF374. 58 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday discussed AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd’s alleged unsafe sex practices with escorts. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached Mr Rudd’s privacy. The information disclosed during the item was already in the public domain and widely broadcast, so did not constitute private facts. The item also did not disclose any personal details about Mr Rudd for the purposes of encouraging harassment. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An item on Sunday discussed former AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd and his alleged behaviour with escorts, in particular his unsafe sex practices. The item featured an interview with an anonymous former escort who had been hired by Mr Rudd. The item also showed images of the outside of Mr Rudd’s house and boat....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On an episode of Seven Sharp, the hosts discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and interviewed a law professor. The professor explained the contrast between the dispute resolution mechanisms of the TPP and those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After the interview, one host asked the other, ‘So these foreign countries could potentially hold the government for ransom down the track? Surely it goes both ways; surely we’ll have some control’. The other host replied, ‘Of course it does. Who did we take to the WTO? We’ve taken a number of countries to the WTO. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was misleading in that it suggested that TPP disputes would go through a similar process as the WTO, when in fact this was not the case for investor-state disputes....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Good Morning the presenter interviewed two recently eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the presenters referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, as these words did not feature in the broadcast. Declined to Determine: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A presenter on Good Morning interviewed two eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand, while they cooked a dish. The programme was broadcast on TV ONE on 17 April 2014. [2] Shane Moore complained that the programme breached the discrimination and denigration standard because the presenter referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, and attacked ‘mentally disabled people’. [3] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking read out a letter from a disgruntled viewer about comments he had made during an earlier episode about music group One Direction. The letter contained numerous expletives which were 'beeped' out during the broadcast. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the 'disgusting' language was contrary to good taste and decency and children's interests. Beeping is a commonly employed broadcasting technique to mask potentially offensive language. While most viewers would have discerned what the words were, in the context of an unclassified current affairs programme targeted at adults, which is known for being humorous and at times provocative, the segment did not threaten standards....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-074–076:New Zealand Shooters Rights Association Inc, Otago-Southland Firearms Coalition and Beltowski and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-074, 1992-075, 1992-076 PDF1. 9 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-118:Felderhof and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-118 PDF386. 53 KB...

Summary An item on the Holmes programme examined the situation of a woman and her eight year old son who was described as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Footage of the child, exhibiting what were said to be some behavioural problems of the syndrome, was shown on the programme which was broadcast on TV One on 4 March 1999 commencing at 7. 00 pm. Ms Burnell complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme violated the child’s rights of privacy and confidentiality. He was identified by his first name, his face was visible, and he clearly expressed his total opposition to being filmed for public viewing, she wrote....