Search Rapua

SummaryKim Hill, as spokesperson for Radio New Zealand staff, was interviewed on the Tonight programme on TV One on 16 June 1999 at 10. 10pm. The discussion focused on a paper prepared by a member of the RNZ Board which proposed that its News and Current Affairs services could be contracted out. Mr Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast both of the item, and the trailers which promoted it, breached broadcasting standards. In particular, he objected to Ms Hill, as a public sector employee, questioning the appointment of the Board member who had made the proposal. Mr Boyce also expressed concern that she had been interviewed at her home when the matters she was discussing were related to her work. In its response, TVNZ advised that it was satisfied that Ms Hill’s comments were appropriately balanced by responses from the Board’s Chairman....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reporter allegedly made the comment “a line of fools” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 3 (privacy) – material complained about not in broadcasts identified by complainant – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Episodes of One News were broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 19 and 20 October 2010. Complaint [2] P David J Cooke complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that, during a news item, reporter Miriama Kamo had referred to a group of people as “a line of fools”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – headline summary on the respective National Party and Labour Party plans to provide financial assistance to New Zealanders who lost their jobs as a result of the economic crisis – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement that Labour’s policy applied to anybody who lost their job was inaccurate – headline summary would have misled viewers – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of accuracy No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a round-up of the day’s top stories on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Green Party was calling for an urgent safety review of non-stick cookware – claimed the US Environmental Protection Agency had found possible links between non-stick cookware, cancer and birth defects – veterinarian stated that non-stick pans could be deadly to household birds – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item contained misleading and inaccurate statements – would have unnecessarily alarmed viewers – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any person or organisation taking part in the programme – not upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $927. 50 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coke Countdown – music video – “Toxic” by Britney Spears – allegedly bad taste and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Guidelines 9a and 9d – PGR viewing time – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The music video “Toxic” by Britney Spears was broadcast on Coke Countdown on TV2 at 9. 00am on 22 February 2004. Complaint [2] Rick and Suzanne Stancombe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the music video was in “poor taste” and that “children should not be subjected to this sort of indecency”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – downloadable episode of programme on TVNZ’s website – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaint Findings Not a broadcast within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Fair Go, broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2004, featured a property development company of which Kevin Davies was a director. [2] Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd on 4 June 2004, alleging that the programme breached standards of balance, fairness and accuracy. [3] TVNZ declined to accept his complaint, as it was lodged outside the 20 working-day period specified in section 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

ComplaintOne News – Police shooting of Steven Wallace – correction – inaccurate FindingsStandard G14 – correction not inaccurate – no inaccurate implication – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A correction was broadcast on One News about an erroneous statement in an earlier item about the Police shooting of Steven Wallace. The correction was broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 16 May 2001. A A K Grant complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the correction "compounded and underlined the original misreporting", as he considered that it implied that the shooting related to breaking windows. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint as it considered that the correction was accurate. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Grant referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Decision The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the film complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing. Mulholland Falls, a film about organised crime in Los Angeles, was broadcast on TV2 on 25 October 1999 beginning at 8. 30pm. It followed the adventures of a special police squad which had been set up to destroy gangs. Stuart Maclean complained to TVNZ that the opening sequence, which depicted what he said was the beginning of oral sex, was not of a standard consistent with good taste and decency and was completely unacceptable at 8. 30pm on a channel which purported to be a family channel. TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – carried out testing on imported and locally produced olive oil – stated that sensory panel was “IOC accredited” and its supervisor was “the only person qualified by the IOC… to convene a sensory panel” – reported that all European imports failed sensory test and two failed chemical test – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – references to IOC accreditation were inaccurate and gave greater status to the testing than was justified – broadcaster was put on notice that the testing was not “IOC accredited” but nevertheless made statements of fact to that effect – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – notwithstanding finding one aspect of the programme was inaccurate, complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and mitigate any resulting unfairness, and its response was adequately presented – not upheld No Order This headnote does…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-166–167:Bardwell and Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-166, 1993-167 PDF496. 64 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-005:McAllister and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-005 PDF1. 03 MB...

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. ]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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a 1News item reporting on violence in Amsterdam in November 2024 surrounding the Ajax v Maccabi Tel Aviv football match, breached the balance standard. The Authority acknowledged the violence in Amsterdam appeared to be ‘controversial’, but was satisfied that to the extent the item could be seen as ‘discussing’ the alleged causes or instigators of the violence, the item adequately reported the information the complainant considered was missing.   Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Motorway Patrol breached the privacy standard. A short segment of the programme focused on a Senior Constable attending a crash on an Auckland motorway. It featured footage of the complainant as a ‘Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to check on the person in the crashed vehicle. The Authority acknowledged the impact of the broadcast on the complainant, who said they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes and were not asked for consent. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, the Authority found the broadcast did not disclose information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging it was unbalanced to include coverage of some New Year Honours award recipients and not others. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it is not capable of being determined by this complaints procedure and had little connection to the standard raised. The Authority considered that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance...