Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp one of the presenters made comments about Guy Fawkes celebrations and fireworks. The complainant alleged that the presenter's comment, 'Did you know a burning sparkler is five times hotter than boiling water? ' was inaccurate. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial. The presenter was giving her opinion about the likelihood of fireworks being banned and her mention of the temperature of sparklers would not have materially altered viewers' understanding of the item. Declined to Determine: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During her 'final word' segment on Guy Fawkes night, a Seven Sharp presenter gave her views on the likelihood of fireworks being banned in future, saying: We've got Guy Fawke's tonight, guys....

SummaryA special Assignment programme broadcast on TV One on 31 May 1998 at 6. 30pm focused on the trial of Malcolm Rewa, accused and found guilty of a large number of sexual attacks on women. It replaced the advertised Our World programme. Mrs Mitchell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the time of the broadcast, which she said breached standards of good taste and decency, and the fact that it replaced a programme watched unsupervised by many children. She noted that no warning had been given about the change to the schedule, but even if it had, she observed, many families would not have been aware of the warning. In its response, TVNZ noted that Rewa’s trial, which had concluded the previous day, had elicited a great deal of public interest....

SummaryReferences to sexual activity were made in an episode of Dharma and Greg broadcast on TV2 on 4 November 1998 at 7. 30pm. Two different couples were said to have had sex in a public place. Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such explicit programme content was unsuitable for broadcast before 8. 30pm. He lamented a decline in standards which he noted had occurred in recent years, and sought to have all references to sex excluded from any PGR programme. At the outset, TVNZ noted that no sexual activity was shown in the programme, but was only implied in the action and dialogue. It acknowledged that the programme was more suited to adult audiences, but did not accept that it was unsuitable for children who were watching under the guidance of an adult....

Summary A representative of the Airline Pilots’ Association was interviewed on Holmes, broadcast at 7. 00pm on TV One on 2 September 1999, in connection with a strike by Ansett pilots. Mr Geddes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was biased, unbalanced and actively denigrated pilots involved in the dispute. He said he was appalled at the rudeness of the interviewer and his unprofessional, discourteous behaviour. TVNZ conceded that the interview could be described as "robust" but did not agree that it was rude or biased. The pilots’ representative was given full opportunity to respond on their behalf, it argued. It explained that, as management had declined to appear, balance was achieved by the presenter adopting a "devil’s advocate" position in order to prevent the item from becoming a chronicle of viewpoints from the Pilots’ Association....

ComplaintGoing Straight – documentary about curing homosexuals through Christian programme – inaccurate – unbalanced – discrimination against homosexuals Findings(1) Standard G6 – majority – documentary focussed on perspectives of those featured – no uphold (2) Standard G13 – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Going Straight was broadcast on Prime Television on 16 June 2000 at 8. 35pm. The programme was a documentary about gay men who were attempting to change their sexual orientation through a Christian programme run at Caleb House in Kansas. The New Zealand Aids Foundation, through its research director, Tony Hughes, complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced. In its view, an exclusively religious perspective on homosexuality had been presented....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that the host of Breakfast had been "complicit in facilitating and allowing disparaging and racist remarks" to be made about Māori during an interview with child advocate Christine Rankin about the high rate of child abuse in New Zealand. The complainant said the host's "grossly offensive" questions had created the impression that only Māori abuse and kill their children, breaching standards of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Ms Rankin’s comments were not intended to disparage Māori but to call "for action on child abuse among Māori who are significantly over-represented in child abuse statistics". She had clearly stated that it was not just Māori who were abusing their children. The broadcaster said the host's questions had forced Ms Rankin to balance her comments....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Teenage Caveman – movie about teenagers in the future who fall in with a group of genetically-altered and indestructible mutants – complainant objected to scenes of group sexual intercourse between teenagers, discussion on female pubic hair, female masturbation, and a young woman “exploding and a very graphic display of her exposed organs” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – cumulative effect of challenging content – implied group sex and partial nudity intended to titillate – excessive drug and alcohol use – gratuitous violence and profanity – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] The movie Teenage Caveman was broadcast on TV2 at 12. 35am on 17 April 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on the death of a jockey resulting from a fall – item showed images of the fall – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindings Standard 1 – news unclassified – images relevant to news item – not graphic – not upheld Standard 7 – contextual factors – no warning required – not upheld Standard 9 – news item – unclassified – not upheld Standard 10 – tragic accident – violence standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] One News broadcast an item on 27 March 2005 at 6pm on TV One concerning the death of a young jockey resulting from his fall during a race....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-013 Dated the 13th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C G HAYBALL of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-064 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RICHARD GALE of Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding a 21- month prison sentence given to a man found guilty of illegally selling his large gun collection on the black market – discussion about whether sentences in New Zealand were long enough – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – viewers only provided with one significant viewpoint – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7. 10am on Thursday 18 December 2008, included an interview with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. The interview focused on the previous day’s sentencing of a man to 21 months imprisonment for illegally selling his large gun collection on the black market....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Back Benches – Mt Albert by-election special – programme featured candidates from Labour, National, Green, ACT and United Future – candidates campaigned for votes and addressed various issues facing the electorate – allegedly in breach of balance and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – programme discussed controversial issues of public importance – criteria used by broadcaster to select participants was justifiable – a variety of significant viewpoints was presented – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – ALCP did not take part and was not referred to – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Back Benches was broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 9pm on Friday 10 June 2009....

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....

ComplaintHavoc and Newsboy’s Sellout Tour – The Victory Lap – complainant shown blindfolded opening oysters at Bluff Seafood Festival – comments from Newsboy suggested he was drunk or had been taking drugs – inaccurate – unfair – defamatory FindingsStandard 6 – satirical series – festival and activities lampooned – complainant identifiable – reputation as oyster shucker not impugned – not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Richard Lee Kahukura was featured opening oysters while blindfolded at the Bluff Seafood Festival in an episode of the satirical series Havoc and Newsboy’s Sellout Tour – The Victory Lap broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on 9 July 2002. [2] Mr Kahukura complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments during the broadcast made by Newsboy, suggesting that he was drunk and drugged, were inaccurate, unfair, and defamatory....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter was discussing American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship. At the end of the segment the presenter remarked, ‘Yeah, they don’t have very good humour the British, do they? They probably didn’t get [Mr Spieth’s] speech. ’ A complaint was made that this comment was ‘racist and untrue’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comment was not malicious and was unlikely to cause widespread offence, therefore any potential harm caused by the broadcast did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy  Introduction[1] During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter discussed American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with President of Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education, as opposed to daycare – President made comments which reflected negatively on daycare – allegedly unbalanced in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – programme framed the interview as a debate about the merits of “Daycare vs Homecare” but item itself had flavour of advertorial – taking into account likely audience, insufficient balance was provided – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a reporter’s comment during a segment on 1 News concerning the death of a child from a throat infection breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The Authority acknowledged the relevant phrase represented a poor choice of words. However, in the context, the Authority accepted that it was inadvertent and did not merit regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint a report on 1 News showing footage of a homicide at a Raumanga service station breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. The complainant considered it was inappropriate to show footage of ‘a murder being committed,’ and that it promoted antisocial behaviour. The Authority found the footage was justified in the context, noting there was no unreasonable or unnecessary degree of graphic detail, news programmes by their nature often feature challenging material, and the introduction to the item (which signposted the ‘confronting video clip’ and included a warning) adequately informed viewers of the nature of the footage, enabling them to choose not to watch. It also noted the public interest in showing the footage given Police’s request for assistance in the matter....