Search Rapua

ComplaintFair Go – comments about complainant which collects membership fees for fitness centres – complaint that item unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 – one aspect of discussion of credit contracts omitted relevant information provided by complainant – unfair – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Some of the activities of Adfit Membership Services Ltd, a company which collects membership fees for more than 100 fitness centres, were investigated in an item on Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 10 September 2003. Fair Go is a consumer rights programme which looks at issues from the consumers' perspective....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

ComplaintHolmes – cure for acne – drug identified – side effects not reported – misleading – unbalanced – partial FindingsStandard G6 – not controversial issue to which the standard applies – decline to determine; other standards not relevant ObservationIssue to be considered when free-to-air code is revised This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The availability of an effective treatment for acne was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 23 March 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. A dermatologist and a doctor were interviewed, as well as two young people who had both been successfully treated by a named drug. The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd (PHARMAC) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was misleading and unbalanced. In particular it expressed its concern that the broadcaster had been used to promote a prescription medicine....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – follow-up item on the use of sow crates in the pig farming industry – interviewed woman planning a whistle-blowing campaign offering rewards to farm workers for exposing cruel farming practices, and CEO of the New Zealand Pork Industry Board – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence that interview with New Zealand Pork Industry Board CEO was unfairly edited – as industry advocate he should expect robust questioning on these issues – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – programme focussed on forthcoming Civil Unions Bill – included a telephone poll asking viewers to respond to the question “Should gay relationships be legally recognised” – polls results found 24% in favour of gay relationships being recognised and 76% against – closing comments by host queried which polls politicians in support of the Bill were relying on – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – poll not presented as scientific – results reflected only the views of those willing to call in – limitations of poll clear – host’s comments presented as opinion not fact – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rome – two episodes contained offensive language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was gratuitous and could have been edited without affecting the storyline – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Two episodes of the historical drama Rome were broadcast on TV One at 10. 25pm on 13 January and at 11. 10pm on 3 February 2008. The 13 January episode contained the following lines: Caesar would’ve fucked Medusa if she’d had a crown. Nice manners, for a whore. Your son will eat shit and die before I make him legal. [I swear] on Juno’s cunt. I am a son of Hades! I fuck Concord in her arse! You can tell your lawyer to shove a taper up his arse and set himself alight....

ComplaintStrassman – fuck – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – assessment of context required by standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits bordered on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 5 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Grant Nesdale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. He argued that television should "upgrade" values, rather than denigrate them. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It also said that television’s role was to reflect society’s values....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on water leak in West Auckland – stated that Watercare had failed to respond to complaints about water leak – interviewed representative from Watercare – showed person drinking water which had come from storm-water drain – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created impression that complaints made to Watercare and that Watercare failed to respond to complaints – Watercare and council separate organisations – item inaccurate and misleading – however, in light of factual background, broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure item accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Watercare invited to appear on Close Up with regard to complaint made 6 November – Watercare given sufficient opportunity to check records given nature of allegations made against it – not upheld…...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of the crime thriller series Paula, one of the characters used the phrase ‘Jesus fucking Christ’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of this phrase in the context of the programme breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that many people may find this phrase offensive. However, taking into account the nature of the programme, the pre-broadcast warning for frequent use of coarse language, the Adults Only classification, the time of broadcast and audience expectations of the programme, the Authority did not consider the use of the phrase threatened community norms of taste and decency, or justified restricting the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the trial of Colin Mitchell, who was found guilty of the kidnapping and sexually motivated attack of a young woman. During the item, the reporter stated: ‘DNA evidence from [Mr Mitchell’s] toothbrush matched that found on and inside the pair of gloves left at the quarry; 800,000 million times more likely to have come from Mitchell than anyone else’ [our emphasis]. The Authority declined to determine a complaint that the reporter’s statement was inaccurate because it did not take into account the possibility that Mr Mitchell had an identical twin, or that DNA evidence could have been falsified or planted. The Authority found the complaint was frivolous and trivial....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included Colmar Brunton poll results on the percentage of party votes for major political parties – results did not take account of “undecided voters” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – omission of undecided voters not material given the focus and context of the item which was the decline in the level of support for the National Party – potential harm in terms of impact on voter participation was not significant given the length of time until next general election – viewers would not have been misled in any material respect – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-025:Gray and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-025 PDF1. 23 MB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-029:O'Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-029 PDF1. 33 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-081:Woolerton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-081 PDF305. 42 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-031:Terry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-031 PDF262. 84 KB...