Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – use of archive footage of haka during item about foreshore and seabed dispute – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – use of footage not misleading or inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – use not unfair to any person or group – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Archive footage of a haka performed at Waitangi beach was used in a Holmes item about the dispute over ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The programme was broadcast on 19 August 2003 at 7. 00pm on TV One. [2] Wiremu Te Rauna Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the archive footage was inaccurate and amounted to “fraud and betrayal”, as it had no connection to the seabed and foreshore debate....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. On 15 March 2019 a special 1 News broadcast covered the terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. The broadcast featured footage of victims being taken into hospital, many of whom had visibly sustained gunshot injuries and/or were identifiable. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the coverage breached the privacy standard. The Authority found that media coverage of this event had high public interest in light of the unprecedented nature of extreme violence that occurred. The media had an important role to play in informing the public of events as they unfolded, including the nature and scope of injuries suffered and the action of first responders, including medical personnel. The Authority acknowledged that the repeated use of footage of identifiable victims amounted to a breach of privacy but found that the public interest defence applied....

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...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – news items discussed identity of a deceased teenager, despite being informed in the programme that police were not releasing the deceased’s name in accordance with a request from his family – disclosure of deceased’s identity allegedly in breach of his family’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – deceased’s family identified through their connection with him – no private facts revealed because deceased’s identity had already been disclosed on social networking sites so was in the public realm, even if not officially confirmed by police – broadcaster took steps, as soon as reasonably practicable, to ensure the deceased was not named again in the programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in mainstream cosmetics, including that most contained parabens – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee was not presented as an expert – viewers would have understood that her comments were opinion and not statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-020:Malone and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-020 PDF (315. 48 KB)...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – scene contained two female characters kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and controversial issues standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – kissing scene was brief and innocuous – not made less acceptable by the fact the kiss was between two women – content was consistent with the programme’s G rating and not unsuitable for children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme was correctly rated G and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes – Coronation Street was a fictional drama – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-019:Seymour and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-019 PDF1015. 04 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-075:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-075 PDF484. 07 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 79/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-041 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-128 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET MIDDLEMISS of Featherston Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-188 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET CHAPMAN of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An episode of The Way We Were, dealing with New Zealand’s involvement in overseas conflicts, was shown on TV One on 13 January 1998, beginning at 8. 00 pm. Part of the narration included the words, "the Brits let us down", in an aspect referring to the fall of Singapore and Japan’s expansion into the Pacific during World War II. Mr Nichols complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the statement, which he had heard as "let down by the Brits in 1941", was factually untrue and inaccurate, and a gratuitous insult to a friendly country. In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ claimed some historical justification for the statement....

SummaryA repeat broadcast of the programme Who Dares Wins was broadcast on TV2 on 10 December 1998 at 7. 30pm. A Melbourne man responded to a dare to appear on stage with the male revue troupe Manpower. Ms Dawn Shelford of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, on behalf of the group Preserving Communication Standards. In her view the broadcast was offensive, particularly during family viewing time. In its response, TVNZ noted that the programme complained about had been the subject of an earlier complaint to the Authority which had not been upheld. It advised that the arguments it advanced then remained valid. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Shelford referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

ComplaintTonight – item on papal visit to Jerusalem – reference to Israel – inaccurate FindingsStandard G14 – reference ambiguous – implicitly included area beyond Jerusalem – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A news reporter presenting a report on the papal visit to Jerusalem described himself as being in Israel when the scene depicted showed he was in East Jerusalem. The item was broadcast on Tonight on TV One at 10. 30pm on 23 March 2000. On behalf of the Wellington Palestine Group, Ms Zarifeh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the description was inaccurate, as she maintained that East Jerusalem was not in Israel. In its response, TVNZ said the reference to Israel in the item was not inaccurate, although it conceded that the reporter’s description did not conform to its house style. It declined to uphold the complaint....