Search Rapua

ComplaintThe $20 Challenge – four participants challenged to live in Paris on $20 a day – one participant’s use of "bugger" and "shit" – offensive language FindingsG2 – language acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The $20 Challenge, broadcast on TV2 on 19 February 2001 at 7. 30pm, featured four young New Zealanders challenged to survive in Paris on just $20 for three days. The group was set a number of assignments, including talking part in a skate-athon, selling produce at a local market, and getting work in the kitchen of a leading restaurant. They also had to arrange their own accommodation. Harold White complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used by one of the participants in the challenge....

ComplaintRacing – Live coverage of Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham – arch behind presenters bearing words Lion Brown – incidental liquor promotion – considerable liquor signage – saturation of liquor promotion FindingsStandard A1 – no saturation of liquor promotion – no uphold Standard A3 – repeated visuals of arch – incidental liquor promotion not minimised – uphold OrderCosts to Crown of $750 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Live coverage of the Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham was shown on TV One between 5. 00–6. 00pm on 25 January 2003. The coverage included comments from the presenters when, on a number of occasions, there was an arch bearing the words "Lion Brown" in the background. [2] Cliff Turner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of the arch amounted to the incidental promotion of liquor....

ComplaintHolmes – panel discussion on Australian Rugby League’s punishment of John Hopoate who had assaulted other players on the field – humorous approach – breach of good taste and decency – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – context – topical and newsworthy issue – humour balanced by serious debate – no uphold Standard G12 – current affairs programme – child viewers unlikely to have been watching alone – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7pm on 29 March 2001, focussed on Australian Rugby League’s decision to suspend John Hopoate for twelve weeks. Mr Hopoate had been found guilty of conduct contrary to the true spirit of rugby league for inserting his finger into the backsides of three players during a rugby league match....

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 People, Our Century: "Cradle to Grave" – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate portrayal of history – failure to acknowledge social initiatives of National party FindingsStandard G6 – authored perspective – not a controversial issue – no uphold Standard G19 – not an editorial matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The second programme in the series Our People, Our Century was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 14 February 2000. It was entitled "Cradle to Grave" and interpreted New Zealand’s recent social history through an examination of the lives and experience of three different families. Bruce Fulton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme lacked balance and fairness because it neglected to acknowledge any political party other than the Labour Party....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on 1 News covering the final match in a trilogy fight between champion heavyweight boxers Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder breached the good taste and decency standard. The complainant alleged the fighting shown in the item was excessively violent. The Authority found the level of violence was not unexpected and was acceptable in the context of a sport news story about boxing. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 121/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS MORGAN of Kihikihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J R Morris (Acting Chairperson) L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 6/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-023 Decision No: 1996-024 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY and MICHAEL GIBSON of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-125 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DILIP RUPA of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-100 Decision No: 1997-101 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MURRAY ARNESEN of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Mad Max 2 – The Road Warrior, starting at 9. 15pm, was broadcast on TV2 on 10 April 1999. Referring to a scene which showed a motorcycle gang member raping a woman and then shooting her, B McIntyre complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards. Explaining that the fantasy-adventure film was classified AO, and that it began 45 minutes after the watershed, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. The violence was justifiable in context, it said, and the sexual content in the scene was not explicit. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, B McIntyre referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. Decision The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix....

Summary An item about the squalid living conditions of a Wanganui woman and her cats was broadcast on One Network News on TV One on 25 August 1999, between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm. It included footage showing the interior of the house she lived in, which was filmed during a period when the woman was in hospital. Rev and Mrs Williams complained direct to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the broadcast had breached the woman’s privacy. They considered that, in filming the interior of her house, the woman’s privacy had been grossly and blatantly violated by the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd. TVNZ recommended that the Authority should decline to uphold the complaint. It contended that there was a strong public interest in a story about a person living in New Zealand in such appalling conditions....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Your House Killing You? – featured family in Queensland – father had used a substantial amount of timber treated with Copper Chrome Arsenate (CCA) for landscaping and decking – programme stated that exposure to the chemicals in CCA-treated timber could cause serious health effects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts by relying on scientific experts – mostly expert opinion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Is Your House Killing You? was broadcast on TV One at 8pm on Friday 11 December 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday – item on the sentencing of Millie Elder for drug offences – referred to her as the adopted daughter of Paul Holmes – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – the word “adopted” was not used in a pejorative way – statement was true – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News: Midday, broadcast on TV One at 12pm on Monday 31 March 2008, reported on the sentencing of Millie Elder on drug offences. At the beginning of the item, the presenter said: The adopted daughter of broadcaster Paul Holmes, Millie Elder, will be sentenced in the Auckland District Court today on a range of drug charges. Paul Holmes arrived at court to support his daughter, as did her mother, Hine Elder....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the Teachers Council registering people with convictions – referred to the case of a high school teacher who had been “convicted of supplying P to four students” – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 2 – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while item was ambiguous as to whether Mr Arthur supplied P to his own students, it was inaccurate to state that he supplied P to students – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to state that Mr Arthur supplied P to students – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – item dealt with interview of the Hon John Tamihere MP published in Investigate magazine – Mr Tamihere had later claimed that he did not know the interview was being recorded – item included extracts of interview with complainant, Ian Wishart, editor of Investigate, who spoke about recording process – item also discussed journalistic ethics as to when interviews are “on” or “off the record”, and the specific expectations of interviews with politicians – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – credibility of serving Member of Parliament and former Cabinet Minister is controversial issue of public importance – credibility issues raised and viewers left to decide – competing accounts presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....