Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-073:Bradstock and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-073 PDF595. 61 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-004:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-004 PDF205. 83 KB...

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder broadcast at 7. 15pm during Shortland Street contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the sexual references in the promo were inappropriate for broadcast in this timeslot. The reference to oral sex was inexplicit, would not likely have been understood by most younger viewers and did not exceed expectations of the regular audience of the host programme, which frequently contains mature themes. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children's InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen as follows: Presenter: What might pineapple do to something in your body? Woman: Change the taste of your semen. . . ? Presenter: Have you given it a crack?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints about two episodes from the second season of British dating game show, Naked Attraction, broadcast on TVNZ 2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 27 July 2018 and Friday 3 August 2018. During each episode, a clothed individual selected a date from six naked individuals, who were gradually revealed in stages from the feet up, with no blurring or pixelation of nudity. The complaints alleged these episodes of Naked Attraction contained a high level of full-frontal nudity and sexual discussion, which was offensive and contrary to standards of good taste and decency. The complainants also submitted that the programme was degrading and breached the privacy of the participants....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-113–114:Smits and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-113, 1993-114 PDF798. 21 KB...

SummaryA music video entitled "Smack my Bitch up" was broadcast at about 10. 30pm on Havoc on the closedown show of MTV on 7 June 1998. Ms MacKay of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster of MTV, that the video breached several broadcasting standards because of its portrayal of sexual violence, its exploitation of women and its promotion of contemptuous treatment of women. In its response, TVNZ argued that contextual factors, such as the time of day of the broadcast and the intended audience, were relevant when assessing this complaint. In reaching its conclusion that no standards were breached, it maintained that there was no glamorisation of the exploitation of women nor any aspect which demeaned or represented women as inherently inferior. It argued that the main character’s behaviour was seen as unacceptable, and therefore there was no breach of the good taste standard....

Summary The apprehension by the police of two teenage girls in a clothing store, one of whom had been accused of shoplifting, was portrayed in a segment of Police, broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 8 April 1999. The faces of the girls were blurred. Police is a reality series which reports on the day-to-day activities of police officers. Mrs L complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the privacy standard. She subsequently advised that both girls were her daughters, but in her initial complaint referred only to the effect of the programme on her younger daughter who had been accused by police of stealing some clothing. She complained that despite the blurring of their faces, the girls were identifiable to friends and family....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "Finding Family" – violent family relationship described by woman victim – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – discriminated against men FindingsProgramme about family reunification, not spousal abuseStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – no uphold Standard G6 – no uphold Standard G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The theme of Documentary New Zealand: "Finding Family", broadcast on TV One on 31 July 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, was the reunification of family members who had been separated. One woman described how she had become separated from her son when she escaped from a violent relationship some 30 years previously. He was tracked down by the Salvation Army in Australia....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about large-scale animal neglect on a farm owned by one of New Zealand’s largest dairy producers – included footage of the complainant – allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled into believing the complainant was involved with animal cruelty on the farm – item accurate on material points of fact – majority – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – parts of the item borderline, but fair overall – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – complainant’s behaviour contributed to the way in which she was portrayed – majority – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-022:Cole and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-022 PDF274. 08 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-096:McKay and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-096 PDF359. 24 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-013:Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-013 PDF...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-055:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-055 PDF429. 31 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on four investigations by British police into historical child sex abuse allegations against former UK Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath. The reporter said, ‘Information from these inquiries will be fed into a wider inspection that’s being run by New Zealander Justice Lowell Goddard’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that referring to Lowell Goddard as ‘Justice’ was inaccurate. The use of the title was not a material point of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on four investigations by British police into historical child sex abuse allegations against former UK Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath. The reporter said:Information from these inquiries will be fed into a wider inspection that’s being run by New Zealander Justice Lowell Goddard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of an American sitcom Dr. Ken, Dr Ken met his wife’s successful former boyfriend, Dr Kevin O’Connell, and was jealous. At the end of the episode, Dr O’Connell was portrayed as being drunk and asking Dr Ken’s staff for a lift home. The three staff all replied in unison, ‘I’ll do it! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the scene normalised rape and portrayed rape against men as a ‘laughing matter’. In the context of a fictional sitcom, which was intended to be humorous, the scene did not carry any level of invective, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Dr....

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....