Search Rapua

Complaint Holmes – interview with Prime Minister about refugees – reference to Nauru as a pile of bird shit – offensive language – inappropriate for school children FindingsStandard G2 – crude but acceptable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – minimal impact on children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Nauru was described as a "pile of bird shit" by the presenter on Holmes when interviewing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the Government’s decision to take 150 refugees from the Tampa. The item was broadcast on Holmes on 3 September 2001 beginning at 7. 00pm. [2] Alfred Howard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the phrase was totally inappropriate and offensive. He expressed particular concern that school children would hear the language....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on an Italian television personality who groped David Beckham’s genitals – news presenters commented on the incident – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – while the comments were sexist, they were intended to be humorous and lacked the necessary invective for a breach of the standard – item did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Friday 22 January 2010, reported that David Beckham had his genitals groped by an Italian television personality during a media interview....

Summary It was reported on One Network News on 18 November 1998 that a yacht which had been grounded in a bay in the Far North had been looted, and that the abandoned boat had been stripped of its electronic gear, solar power unit and rigging. Mr Jackson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the report was grossly exaggerated. He advised that the boat had not been abandoned, and had not been stripped by looters. He acknowledged that some small items had been stolen but noted that all but one of those items had been recovered by the police and returned to the owner. Mr Jackson contended that the report had done the Far North community considerable harm and its errors warranted an apology....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad showed dog handlers with the Department of Corrections searching visitors to a prison. The episode showed two occasions of the complainant (SW) being searched; firstly, her bag was searched when she was driving onto prison premises, and secondly, a sniffer dog identified that she was carrying contraband (tobacco) inside the prison and she was shown surrendering this to Corrections staff. In both instances her face was blurred. The Authority upheld SW’s complaint that broadcasting the footage breached her privacy. She was identifiable despite her face being blurred (by clothing, body type, voice, etc), and the disclosure of private facts about her, including prescription drugs she was taking, among other things, was highly offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-044:Hansen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-044 PDF347. 71 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Intrepid Journeys – dancing champion Brendon Cole visited Vanuatu – locals told him how to kill a chicken using a slingshot – he could not manage to hit it and eventually killed it with his hands – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme showed daily reality of a different culture and way of life – was clear that Mr Cole was upset about killing the chicken so viewers were not encouraged by the programme to kill animals in that manner – footage was not gratuitous in context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was correctly rated PGR – scene was signposted so parents could exercise discretion with regard to their children’s viewing – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-004:Hamilton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-004 PDF736. 19 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-041:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-041 PDF485. 61 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-087:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-087 PDF842. 45 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-034:Creighton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-034 PDF713. 18 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-058:Andrews and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-058 PDF489. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-162:Baker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-162 PDF230. 63 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s editorial comments following the item were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. In making its decision, the Authority acknowledged the influential position of the presenters, but found that alternative views were conveyed during the item and in subsequent items during the period of current interest. The presenters’ comments were their opinion and analysis of the issues discussed, rather than statements of fact, so they were not subject to the accuracy standard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on a family who had purchased land in Papamoa only to find that the section had an actual size of 258m2, rather than the 296m2 shown on the property title and in their Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). The item found that the surveyor was responsible for the incorrect description on the title. However, the item also discussed an extract from an email sent to the purchaser by the real estate agent involved, Wayne Skinner, asking for a notation on the SPA seeking verification of the land site to be removed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News promoted the new single from New Zealand singer-songwriter, Lorde. It featured clips taken from the music video for Lorde’s single, ‘Green Light’. In the clips, the singer could be seen leaning out of a car window and later dancing on the car roof. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was in breach of the law and order standard by encouraging reckless driving. The music video, and the news item’s promotion of it, did not actively encourage audiences to break the law, or otherwise promote criminal or serious antisocial activity, taking into account the context. The Authority found that viewers would have understood the singer’s actions to have taken place in the ‘fantasy’ realm of the music video, which made sense within the fictional narrative of the song....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a 1 News segment breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The Authority found that people who hold the views represented in the segment do not amount to a ‘recognised section of the community’ for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also found that, while the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, it was balanced by the inclusion of multiple points of view from several parties. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News, which reported on the Government’s intention to remove a benefit reduction sanction that can apply to sole beneficiary parents who do not name the remaining parent. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced and misleading, as the report omitted details about the exemptions that can apply to the sanction, including that a parent will not have to name the other parent where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence. The Authority found that the focus of this item was the Government’s desire to remove the sanction. The omission of details about the exemptions was therefore not material to the overall focus of the item, and did not mislead viewers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the outbreak of a cattle disease on a farm in South Canterbury. The item featured an interview with a farmer who used the expression ‘for Christ’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this expression was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times. The Authority found there was public interest and high value in hearing an authentic voice from a New Zealand farmer as part of the news report. The Authority also noted it has consistently found that variations of ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations, and in this case, the interviewed farmer used the phrase to express his frustration and strong support of the affected farm owner....