Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

Complaint 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson – naturopath promoted soy products as being efficacious for menopausal women – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsAdvertising programme within the meaning of s. 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and therefore not within the Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During an item on 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson broadcast on TV One on 4 July 2000, a guest promoted the use of Blackmore’s soy products as being healthy and offering relief against menopausal symptoms. A second 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson programme, broadcast on 6 July referred to a soy-based product. Richard James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programmes were deceiving to viewers as they were actually a commercial promotion, and that it was inaccurate to claim that soy products had a palliative effect on menopausal symptoms....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sensing Murder – two psychics attempted to uncover information about a man’s disappearance in 1985 – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – factual information contained in the programme was accurate – psychics’ commentary about the murders was presented as their own perspective – factual material clearly distinguished from opinion, analysis and comment – no evidence viewers were misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sensing Murder, broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 March 2010, considered the disappearance of a man in 1985. His body was never found, and his family wanted to know what had happened to him....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved kidnap of three teenage girls – kidnapper told girls that only two of them could leave alive, and they would have to kill the third girl – intended victim struck and killed the girl who was preparing to kill her – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Criminal Minds, a fictional drama series about the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit, was broadcast at 8. 30pm on TV One on Thursday 8 November 2007. The storyline involved the abduction of three teenage girls who were held captive in a cellar....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Game of Two Halves – included woman whipping a man’s partially bare buttocks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 10 (violence) – segment was distasteful and gratuitous but upholding complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Game of Two Halves, a sports quiz show featuring two teams of various sporting personalities, screened on TV One at 9. 45pm on 1 August 2008. The teams were captained by sporting personalities Marc Ellis and Matthew Ridge. [2] At the end of the episode, the captain of the losing team had to undergo what was called the “Studio Forfeit”, in which the opposing team inflicted light-hearted punishment....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Go Show – “George” lit a match and threw it in a rubbish bin – subsequent episodes showed the safe thing to do – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme The Go Show, broadcast on TV2 at 3pm on Wednesday 19 September 2007, featured a segment about George, an animated character who “sometimes. . . forgets how to keep safe”. The presenter introduced the segment as follows: Kia ora, how are you? I was just about to see what George is up to, would you like to join me?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – repeat episode at 7am on a Sunday morning – reported controversy over recent photographs in Pavement magazine – showed photographs of topless 19-year-old girl – allegedly in breach of children’s interests. FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A repeat episode of the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast on TV One at 7am on Sunday 29 October 2006. One item reported controversy over a recent magazine spread in Pavement magazine, which some people argued contained sexualised images of girls as young as 11 years of age. The programme featured photographs from the magazine, including several shots of a topless 19-year-old girl, and showed advertisements with models adopting suggestive poses....

Complaint Sunday – item on Maui’s dolphins and introduction of set net ban – unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – views of those opposed to the set net ban balanced against those in support – issues raised about treatment of complainants best assessed under Standard 6Standard 6 (preparation) – no evidence of assurances about scope of programme – not unfair – not upheldStandard 6 (presentation) – complainants’ position presented out of context – failure to mention alternative management plan unfair to complainants – upheld OrdersBroadcast of statement $2000 contribution towards complainants’ legal costsThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item about Maui’s dolphins explained that the species was in danger of extinction. It described set net fishing as the “single largest threat to [the] animal’s continued existence” and discussed the imminent Government ban on set net fishing....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Goober Brothers – part of Studio 2 – inventors of “Ja-Handal” – man performing handstands – dog urinated on man’s face – allegedly offensive and not in children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – type of humour depicted appeals to children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Goober Brothers was shown as part of the children’s programme Studio 2. It was a New Zealand-made series of two-minute items featuring mad scientists who come up with weird inventions. The “Ja-Handal”, a jandal for hands, was the invention shown on the episode broadcast on TV2 at 3. 20pm on 16 April 2004....

ComplaintOne News – item about death of Charles Bronson – obituary included film clips – unsuitable for children at that hour – violent FindingsStandard 9 – context – no uphold Standard 10 – care and discretion exercised – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The death of actor Charles Bronson was the subject of an item broadcast on One News, beginning at 6. 00pm on 1 September 2003. During the item, brief clips from some of the films in which the actor had appeared in were shown, including a scene where one character is shot by another. [2] Viewers for Television Excellence Inc (VOTE) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unacceptable to broadcast such a violent item during the news hour, and that the item was unsuitable for children....

Complaints Friends – two episodes – references to "peeing" in one and depiction of strippers in the other – offensive behaviour – actors involved aged twenty something – inappropriately classified G – broadcasters not mindful of effect on child viewers FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – affirms positive values – appropriately classified – no uphold Standard G12 – not alarming – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Friends is a long-established sitcom involving the adventures and love lives of six young people living in New York City. A jellyfish sting sequence was dealt with in the episode broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on 29 November 2001 and one of the characters, Joey, recalled that "peeing" on a sting had been recommended as a remedy on the Discovery Channel....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on the experience and fears of one woman dealing with her mentally-ill ex-husband – woman described her ex-husband as dangerous – dealt with failures of the mental health system – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – woman gave her opinions about her husband, did not make statements of fact about people with bipolar disorder in general – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, people with bipolar disorder or mental illness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-077:Wells and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-077 PDF301. 25 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-129:Kubala and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-129 PDF269. 54 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. 1991-034:Creighton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-034 PDF713. 18 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....