Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interview with a man about the fate of his wife who died in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake – showed sequence of photographs as reporter stated, “As these police photos show, there were concrete cutters used on the western side of the building, but what about on the side [the woman] and four others were trapped? ” – photographs allegedly inaccurate and misleading FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – photographs used to illustrate assertions, based on eyewitness evidence, that concrete cutters were available but not used – use of photographs not material in the context of the item – photographs would not have misled viewers in any significant respect – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A and Marae Investigates – items discussed domestic violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed controversial issue of public importance – items clearly framed as focusing on men’s violence against women – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of domestic violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-075:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-075 PDF484. 07 KB...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under various standards about an answer during the DUKE Quiz which, in identifying an astronaut who ‘did not set foot on the moon’, stated ‘but then, did anyone really land on the moon? ’. The Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Accuracy...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Father Ted – alleged crude humour – alleged disgraceful portrayal of Christian leadersFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g – Father Ted does not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Roman Catholic priests – legitimate work of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Father Ted is a long running British comedy series. A repeat of episodes from the second series screened on TV One on Saturday evenings in November 2003 at 7. 30pm. Television New Zealand Ltd described Father Ted as a series which “makes fun of human foibles through the adventures of a small group of Roman Catholic priests assigned to a remote, fictional island off the coast of Ireland. ” The complainant watched the episodes broadcast on 22 and 29 November....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male sex scene – sodomy – breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1, Guideline 1a – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 14 May 2002 at 9. 35pm on TV One included a scene of two males having sex in a car park. [2] Rob Hodgkinson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was offensive and unacceptable even for "adult only" viewing. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the scene did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Hodgkinson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...

ComplaintFair Go – item about identity theft – reporter obtained driver’s licence in someone else’s name – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 referred only – no encouragement to break the law – fraud and crime elements emphasised – high public interest and educative value – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the issue of identity theft. It featured a Fair Go reporter investigating the issue by obtaining a driver’s licence in someone else’s name. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 April 2003. [2] The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had failed to refer to the "criminal" actions of the reporter in obtaining the driver’s licence....

ComplaintFamily Health Diary – item broadcast during One News – included comment that high blood cholesterol was a risk factor in heart disease – followed by claim that a product called "Logicol" could reduce cholesterol absorption – medical information – unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsFamily Health Diary is advertising programme – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promotion for the product "Logicol" was included in the "Family Health Diary" broadcast on TV One during One News between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 27 September 2001. [2] Mr James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item included medical information which was unbalanced and inaccurate. [3] As TVNZ said that the "Family Health Diary" was an advertising programme put together by Brand World, it referred the complaint to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board for determination....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tiger’s Tail – movie contained scene which combined sex and violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order and violence FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – guideline 10c – depiction of rape required pre-broadcast warning – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – movie did not glamorise rape, or otherwise promote or condone rape – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Tiger’s Tail was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 31 October 2010....

Complaint An Audience with the King – offensive language – broadcaster failed to consider children’s viewing interests FindingsStandard 1 – majority – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – broadcaster was mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Audience with the King recorded the performance of stand-up comedian Mike King before a live audience. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 11 October 2002. [2] Graham Fox complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was offensive, and that it was irresponsible to have broadcast such material at a time when children were likely to be watching television. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the programme in context did not breach current norms of good taste and decency, and that it had considered the viewing interests of children....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item discussing the results of a 1News Verian political poll. The item included analysis and commentary on the poll from 1News’ Political Editor, which the complainants considered was either ‘biased’, unbalanced, inaccurate or unfair to the coalition government. The Authority found no breach of the nominated standards: the item included significant relevant perspectives; the statements complained about were comment, analysis, or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply; and the item did not give rise to any unfairness to the politicians or parties featured. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-058:Shepherd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-058 PDF323. 74 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-173:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-173 PDF259. 91 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-005:Coffey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-005 PDF573. 48 KB...

ComplaintHolmes Leaders’ Debate – Christian Heritage Party not invited – unbalanced – partial – unfair FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – editorial discretion exercised in balanced and fair way – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaders of eight political parties participated in the Holmes Leaders’ Debate broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 15 July 2002. The participants were chosen on the basis that the parties were represented in the outgoing Parliament. The leaders were questioned about aspects of their party’s policies. [2] The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about its exclusion from the Leaders’ Debate and the following Minor Leaders’ Debate. It said that the broadcaster had acted unfairly in not treating all political parties in the same way....

Complaint60 Minutes – Police shooting of Steven Wallace – unbalanced – erroneous FindingsStandard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold Standard G6 – broadcast balanced – balance also achieved in period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 60 Minutes looked at events in Waitara in the minutes before the Police shooting of Steven Wallace. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 6 May 2001. Ian White complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast was "totally unbalanced and erroneous". TVNZ did not consider that the programme had been inaccurate. It also maintained that the programme had been balanced. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr White referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....