Search Rapua

Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and declined to take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about two young people training for the priesthood at a seminary on Ponsonby Road – reporter used phrases “big boss” and “big guy” when referring to God and said “helluva” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Birdland – presenter Jeremy Wells looked at birdlife in New Zealand – visited a weka farm in Southland – was shown caring for pet mice then releasing them to be eaten by weka – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – guideline 9d – animals badly treated – gratuitous and not justified by context – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Birdland, a locally produced wildlife programme hosted by comedian Jeremy Wells, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 14 November 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that a homicide investigation was underway after the death of Rotorua high school principal Hawea Vercoe – presenter stated that Mr Vercoe had died after being punched to the ground during a fight – included details of a recent conviction – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reporters entitled to rely on information provided by police – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the report was accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – family did not take part and were not referred to – 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 Sunday 22 November 2009, reported on the death of high school principal Hawea Vercoe....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a 1News item on a Donald Trump campaign rally breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The complaint was that the item portrayed Trump, his supporters and the Trump campaign in a positive light, while failing to mention his participation in election denial; as a result, the segment could encourage some viewers to participate in election denial. The Authority found this was a straightforward news item covering Trump’s campaign rally, before offering typical political commentary from the US Correspondent on Trump’s election chances. The broadcast did not promote or glamorise illegal or antisocial activity, nor encourage New Zealand voters to engage in election denial. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News report breached the accuracy standard through its story about the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s findings concerning a fatal shooting. The complainant considered the story misleading for its emphasis on the shooting being ‘unjustified’ without further context, including regarding the ‘fine margin’ of the decision. When considered as a whole, the Authority found a reasonable viewer was unlikely to come away from the broadcast with a wrong idea or impression of the facts. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary An item on 60 Minutes focussed on the Philadelphia Police Force, its Commissioner and its facilities and practices. The introduction to the item summarised some perceived problems of the New Zealand Police Force. The item was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1998 commencing at 7. 30 pm. Deputy Commissioner Barry Matthews on behalf of the New Zealand Police complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate. He also complained that the item was unbalanced in failing to allow New Zealand Police the opportunity to present their crime strategies, and explain why the American practices were inapplicable. TVNZ responded that the item was not about the New Zealand Police, and so input from them was unnecessary....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSome of my best friends are … Muslims – Muslims, Christians and "zsh" described favourably as religions – "zsh" apparently "Jewish" but allegedly censored – excision breached standards of balance, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4; Standard 5; Standard 6 – no evidence of any censorship in programme designed to promote tolerance – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The comments made by a Muslim woman were indistinct when she was promoting understanding between Muslims, Christians and a third religious group – possibly Jews. The incident occurred in the programme, Some of my best friends are… which looks at minority groups in New Zealand. Muslims was the group featured in the programme broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 March 2003....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-094 Decision No: 1996-095 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 14/95 Dated the 16th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARY N AITCHISON of Timaru Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 50/95 Dated the 15th day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIFF TURNER of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Summary A scene towards the end of the programme Water Rats broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30 pm on 23 July 1998 depicted a man seizing a policewoman and threatening her with a knife. Mr Parry complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner, especially where women were shown as victims, was unacceptable on television. Knives, he wrote, should never be shown used as weapons on television because that led to copycat crimes. TVNZ responded that the showing of knives could not be absolutely banned. What was important, it suggested, was how knives and other weapons were shown and in what context. Here, it wrote, the scene was essential to the drama. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Parry referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-093 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR J J SMALL of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 77/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D R CAMPBELL of Papamoa Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 159/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

An appeal by Michael Hooker against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP SW 6/02 PDF1. 09 MBComplaintStripsearch – series incorrectly classified as PGR – unsuitable for children – adult themes – breach of good taste – denigrated men – deceptive programming practice – broadcaster not mindful of effect on children FindingsStandard G2 – did not exceed current norms of decency and good taste – no upholdStandard G4 – participants not treated unjustly or unfairly – no upholdStandard G6 – not relevant – no upholdStandard G7 – no upholdStandard G8 – warning that hybrid classification in final episode potentially a deceptive programming practice – no upholdStandard G12 – no upholdStandard G13 – series did not discriminate against men – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Stripsearch was a seven-part series broadcast on TV2 on Tuesday evenings at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog” – alleged frequent use of the word “fuck” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 23 September 2005. During the introductory sequence, the host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog”. Complaint [2] Malcolm Anderson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference to “wanking off a dog” was disgusting, and in breach of good taste and decency....