Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item used the word “gay” in the context of reporting on influx of homosexual couples from Australia getting married in New Zealand as civil unions are not legally recognised in Australia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – “gay” is a commonly accepted and widely used term for homosexuals – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on “skimming” scheme in which accused allegedly “fleeced money from customers who used eftpos machines inside at least one Auckland business” – referred to and showed footage of the “Brooklyn Bar” in Auckland where, according to one customer, he had his card “skimmed” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item wrongly identified the Brooklyn Bar as having been targeted by the fraud – Brooklyn Bar was singled out and was the only business identified, which was unfair and created the impression the business was unsafe – reporter should have obtained verification from the complainant who owns the bar – complainant not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and correct information – complainant and his business treated unfairly – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-118:Felderhof and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-118 PDF386. 53 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-175:Leitch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-175 PDF576. 5 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb. It featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. Close-up footage, including a side-on view of part of her face (unblurred), revealed her demographic, gender, the length and colour of her hair, voice, profile of her nose, clothes, watch, a distinctive ring and the side of her glasses. The Authority found these features enabled identification of the interviewee beyond family and close friends. Their disclosure would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in her position, given she participated on the understanding she would not be identified. The Authority was not persuaded the defence of informed consent applied to the breach of the woman’s privacy....

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of the programme Renters breached the privacy of the tenants of the properties featured. The majority of the Authority did not find any of the tenants were identifiable. As the privacy standard only applies to identifiable individuals, the standard did not apply. The minority view was that the information disclosed was adequate to enable viewers, beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matters disclosed, to identify one individual and the information had the quality of private information such that the disclosure breached the privacy standard. Not Upheld by Majority: Privacy...

The Authority considered a complaint about a promo for Taskmaster which was aired during the programme Breakfast (unclassified) at 7. 30am, and a promo for My Life is Murder which was aired during the programme The Chase (rated G) at 5. 35pm. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these promos, which contained brief sexual references, breached the children’s interests standard. It found the references were mild and inexplicit, were not likely to alarm or distress children, and met the requirements for a G classification. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

An item on 1 News reported on clashes between mourners and Israeli police at the funeral of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was misleading by implying the locations of Abu Akleh’s death and her funeral were in Israel and by impliedly ‘exonerating’ Israel for its police force’s actions at the funeral and for Abu Akleh’s death. While the item did not specify the city or country where the events took place, the Authority found the generic place descriptors used combined with references to ‘Israeli police’ and ‘Israeli forces’ being present would not have misled the audience to believe the events occurred in Israel. It further found the broadcast did not impliedly ‘exonerate’ Israel. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

A promo for James Must-a-pic His Mum a Man aired during the programmes The Chase at 5. 10pm and 1News at 6. 50pm on TVNZ 1. The 14-second promo featured James Mustapic and Art Green sitting at opposite ends of a bathtub, with Mustapic asking Green for dating advice on behalf of his mum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the promo breached the children’s interests standard due to nudity, noting only their chests and legs were visible, and there was no suggestion of sexual behaviour. In the context, the Authority found the promo was consistent with a G classification and would not have adversely affected children. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-063 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B L SINCLAIR of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-042 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A car buyer, disappointed with his purchase from a car dealer, was the subject of an item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One on 9 September 1998. It was reported that the vehicle he had agreed to purchase had been involved in a serious accident in France, and that the rebuilt vehicle did not meet New Zealand safety standards. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that he and his company were unfairly treated on the programme and that it lacked balance. In particular, he complained that the programme’s implication that it had been agreed that the vehicle would meet original specifications was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. He also complained about the fact that he was identified as being the person responsible for the sale, when he had merely facilitated a negotiation....

ComplaintWhat Now? PM – decriminalisation of cannabis – information intended for children – pictures of a joint being rolled – unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard G12 – visuals not consistent with voiceover commentary – unsuitable for children – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The decriminalisation of cannabis was the subject of an item on What Now? PM broadcast on TV2 on 13 July 2000 at about 5. 00pm. Footage accompanying the item showed a cannabis joint being rolled, and two people sharing a joint. Sharon Wilton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the visual content was unsuitable for inclusion in a programme intended for children. TVNZ explained that the purpose of the item was to inform children of the legislative moves to decriminalise cannabis and the position of MP Nandor Tanczos....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-113 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by A F JUDGE of Matamata TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintTeachers – shag and fuck and their derivatives – frequent use – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) and Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Teachers, an eight part series, was broadcast weekly on TV One at 9. 30 on Monday evenings. Using the idiom of the staff and pupils, it told the story of a young teacher of English in a comprehensive school in England. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the episode broadcast on 13 August 2001 included offensive language when using the words "shag" and "fuck" and their derivatives. [3] In response, TVNZ described the series as "contemporary, gritty and humorous" and said that it was classified as AO, broadcast an hour after the AO watershed, and preceded with an explicit warning. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Criminal Minds featured the murder of three restaurant workers during an armed robbery, prompting the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit to re-open a similar cold case that occurred six years earlier. The episode contained violence and drug use. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached broadcasting standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and law and order. The Authority found that while the episode contained challenging content, it was classified AO and was preceded by an adequate warning. The programme’s classification, pre-broadcast warning and established reputation as a crime drama enabled viewers to make an informed viewing decision. The programme did not contain visual acts of violence, and the drug use was not portrayed in an instructional or encouraging manner and was part of the episode’s narrative context....