Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 1 News segment on 14 November 2017 discussed the effect of an expanding Chinese economy on global carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. In a pre-recorded item from the BBC, with reference to the release of CO2, a BBC Correspondent said that ‘the gas traps heat in the atmosphere’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate or unbalanced. The Authority found that the broadcaster was entitled to rely on internationally reputable sources to support the BBC Correspondent’s statement on the issues addressed in the segment. The Authority also found that the broadcaster’s reliance on this leading scientific theory to the exclusion of others in the broadcast was unlikely to leave viewers significantly misinformed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) – Sunday Theatre docudrama about New Zealand being the first country to give women the right to vote – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was a docudrama which legitimately employed dramatic licence to portray historical events – not a news, current affairs, or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) was broadcast as part of TV One's Sunday Theatre timeslot on 24 June 2012. It was a docudrama based on historical facts about how women in New Zealand were given the right to vote in 1893....

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....

ComplaintIntrepid Journeys – presenter Michael Laws exclaimed "Jesus Christ" – blasphemy – offensive FindingStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – not blasphemy in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Michael Laws was the presenter of the episode of Intrepid Journeys broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 March 2003 in which he travelled through Ecuador. Intrepid Journeys was a documentary series in which well-known New Zealanders toured remote foreign locations which provided some degree of personal challenge. [2] Margie Brown complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the presenter’s use of the phrase "Jesus Christ" as an exclamation during the programme. Such use, she wrote, amounted to blasphemy and was offensive. [3] In response, TVNZ questioned whether the use of the phrase during the programme was blasphemy, as it was not used in a religious sense....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-033:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-033 PDF276. 53 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-022:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-022 PDF421. 83 KB...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The documentary Swipe with Caution investigated the use of online dating apps, including interviews with relevant experts and dating app users, as well as detailing specific case studies. One of those case studies involved the complainant, who was convicted of sexual violation and assault after meeting with Ms X through a dating app. Ms X, through an actor, retold her story of the night. The complainant considered the broadcast was inaccurate and portrayed him unfairly. He argued Ms X’s recollections were presented as matters of proven fact but were inconsistent with the agreed facts identified in the Court’s sentencing decision. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the particular segment had high public value, as it involved a survivor telling her story, and was otherwise materially accurate....

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: 1996-014 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CENTRE FOR PSYCHO- SOCIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT in Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 23/94 Dated the 5th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Q + A with Jack Tame that discussed a recent climate change report and recent high temperatures in the Antarctic region. The item included interviews with experts, one of whom described the high temperatures in Antarctica as an ‘extreme event that we've seen in the background of climate change’ and that we should expect more such events ‘as the world is warming’. The complainant alleged the broadcast misled viewers as extreme weather events are not becoming more frequent, the higher temperatures in Antarctica were inaccurate, humans do not cause climate change and no detrimental changes have been observed. The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, including relying on authoritative experts, and the broadcast was unlikely to mislead viewers....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on people living in cars breached the accuracy standard. The broadcast included figures of the number of people living in cars in 2017 and 2022, but noted the issue was ‘not easy to quantify’. It also included interviews with community organisations, footage from 2017 electoral debates on the issue, and interviews with the Associate Housing Minister and Leader of the Opposition. The complaint alleged the figures were inaccurate and the broadcast misleadingly suggested Labour Party policy was responsible for the issue. The Authority recognised a lack of data in this area, but found the broadcast was materially accurate and, in any event, relied on reputable sources (being data provided by the Ministry of Social Development)....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of the phrase ‘insane for the Ukraine, left hook to the brain’ by a presenter following TVNZ’s coverage of the Olympic men’s middleweight boxing final, breached the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the language used would not have caused audiences undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp the presenter Hilary Barry welcomed a temporary presenter, Matt Chisholm, who responded by saying ‘it’s bloody good to be here’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘bloody’ breached the good taste and decency standard, finding the use of the term in the context of this programme was not inappropriate or unnecessary. The Authority has consistently found this expression to be colloquial language commonly used as an exclamation in our society. The Authority noted that Seven Sharp is aimed at adult viewers and the expression was not intended to be aggressive or pejorative. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm by the use of this term did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party that included the statement, ‘Together we went hard and early to fight COVID. . . ’ The complaint was that this statement breached broadcasting standards because it should have said the Labour Party ‘went hard and late’, on the basis it could have taken ‘some action at the border’ earlier than it did, to protect New Zealanders. The Authority found the statement was clearly opinion and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than a statement of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. There was no actual or potential harm caused, to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a promo for Love Triangle that aired during an episode of Treasure Island: Fans v Faves at around 8pm breached the offensive and disturbing content, and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that while the programme Love Triangle was rated 16-L, and Treasure Island: Fans v Faves was rated PG-L, the editing of the promo meant it was appropriate for the rating of the host programme and the timeslot. On this basis the promo would not have caused widespread undue offence, or harm to children in the audience justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...