Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item – street march through Auckland – topless protester shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 5 March 2005 showed a street march through Auckland that day in support of “family values”. A topless woman was among those shown protesting against the views expressed by the marchers. Complaint [2] Luke McKoy complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that showing a topless woman did not observe standards of good taste and decency....

Summary An item on Teletext reported on the death of a man from head injuries which he had sustained the previous day when visiting a motor cycle club. It also reported that three men who were at the scene "when he was beaten" were being interviewed. Ms MacDonald complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item, which she said was broadcast on 7 September 1999, was fabricated and totally wrong. As the ex-wife of the dead man and on behalf of his two young sons, she said they had been devastated by the report. She sought a correction from the broadcaster. TVNZ responded that "a second news item following the autopsy" had not been published because of editorial pressures. It agreed that a later explanation should have been aired, and advised Ms MacDonald that it had been broadcast on Teletext on 10 September....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tudors – included a scene in which a man was tortured by having a burning hot steel rod pushed up his backside – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – did not promote, glamorise or condone torture – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Tudors, a drama series about the reign and marriages of King Henry VIII, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 1 November 2010. The programme included a brief scene in which a rebel leader was tortured....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989My Wife and Kids – adult character made references to sex life – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme contained oblique and light-hearted sexual innuendo – mild sexual banter would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of My Wife and Kids was broadcast on TV2 at 5. 30pm on Wednesday 11 February 2009. At the beginning of the programme, a family were shown sitting around their kitchen table eating when the mother announced that she wanted to open her own restaurant. The children left the room and the mother and father were left sitting at the table....

ComplaintOne News – Olympic competitors banned for drug use – athlete Marion Jones suspected – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – not applicable Standard G4 – report on speculation not unfair – no uphold Standard G5 – speculation not illegal – no uphold Standards G14, G19 and G21 – not applicable This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Under the heading "Drug Cheats", a promo for Holmes broadcast on TV One on 28 September 2000 questioned whether athlete Marion Jones and swimmer Inge de Bruijn had taken performance-enhancing drugs before the Olympic Games in Sydney. John O’Neill complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the allegations required an explanation. He said he had not heard anything to link athlete Marion Jones to drugs, and he wondered where TVNZ had got its information, and whether the allegation was justified....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Complaint Promo for film American Beauty – wrongly classified – explicit sexual content at 7. 30pm – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – context - extreme brevity – no upholdStandard 7 – not explicit – classification appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the film American Beauty, to be shown at 8. 30pm that evening, was screened on TV2 at about 7. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. Among the scenes in the promo was one of a couple engaged in sexual intercourse. [2] Dr Exton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the depiction of explicit sexual behaviour, at a time when children were the target audience, breached the standards. [3] In response, TVNZ said the scene was brief and non-explicit and not inappropriate during the PGR time-band. It declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints Friends – two episodes – references to "peeing" in one and depiction of strippers in the other – offensive behaviour – actors involved aged twenty something – inappropriately classified G – broadcasters not mindful of effect on child viewers FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – affirms positive values – appropriately classified – no uphold Standard G12 – not alarming – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Friends is a long-established sitcom involving the adventures and love lives of six young people living in New York City. A jellyfish sting sequence was dealt with in the episode broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on 29 November 2001 and one of the characters, Joey, recalled that "peeing" on a sting had been recommended as a remedy on the Discovery Channel....

ComplaintStrassman – fuck– offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in Standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits – bordering on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 19 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It pointed out that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had declined to uphold an earlier complaint from Mr Schwabe about such language in Strassman....

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....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item about future upgrades to Wellington Airport infrastructure, including new runway technology designed to allow larger planes to land in the capital. The complainant said the item lacked balance and accuracy as the story was illustrated with some footage of windy conditions in Wellington, instead of showing Wellington on calm and windy days. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to determine (section 11(b) Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances):  Balance, Accuracy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle. On the basis it was frivolous and trivial, the Authority declined to determine the complaint that the item’s use of the word ‘biker’ gave the impression the motorcyclist was a ‘reckless’ gang member and had caused the accident. ‘Biker’ was a colloquial term referring to the driver of a motorbike, and in any case the words ‘biker’ and ‘motorcylist’ were used interchangeably. Decline to Determine: Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A One News item which reported on an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle used the term ‘biker’ to refer to the motorcyclist. The item was broadcast on 15 October 2013 on TV ONE....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-096:McKay and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-096 PDF359. 24 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two items about the disappearance of a six-year-old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies in either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – 5 December broadcast not unfair to mother of six-year-old boy – complainant did not specify any person in the 20 December broadcast who was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a One News item "fundamentally misrepresented" the Electoral Finance Bill by saying, first, that "new rules for election spending will mean big donations to political parties' campaigns will no longer be kept secret", and second, that "other secret donors would also be outed – donations over $5000 would have to be declared”. The complainant said the Bill required no greater degree of disclosure of the amounts of donations and the identities of donors than the existing law. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the story was about third party activities at election time, rather than donations to political parties. As third parties would have to register with the Electoral Commission if they intended to spend more than $5,000 on an election campaign, their identity would no longer be secret....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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?...