Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-007:Wright and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-007 PDF444. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-046–051:Whyte and 5 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-046–051 PDF1. 94 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-072:Minister of Health (Hon Simon Upton) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-072 PDF489. 34 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-024:Jensen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-024 PDF255. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-026–027:New Zealand Business Roundtable and Treasury and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-026, 1990-027 PDF3. 73 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-083:Jones and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-083 PDF2. 47 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-163:Minister of Customs (Hon Murray McCully) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-163 PDF325. 12 KB...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on vandalism at Horowhenua Rowing Club – included footage of the complainant verbally abusing a kayaker, and interview with complainant – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item suggested that the complainant may have been responsible for the vandalism – however, the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut that suggestion and the reporter made it clear that no one had been charged for the vandalism – the complainant explained his behaviour as depicted in the footage – use of the term “uncle” to link the complainant and a young rower would not have changed viewers’ impression of the complainant or the situation – reference to assault conviction was correct at the time of broadcast – overall, complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term “uncle”…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-026:Heritage Mining NL and Gold Resources Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-026 PDF1. 27 MB...

FindingsAuthority declines to accept the complaint on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction to do so. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Complaint[1] Shirish Paranjape emailed Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) on 19 January complaining about its coverage of One Day International cricket matches between South Africa and India. Mr Paranjape maintained that TVNZ’s One News programme had only included coverage of the games won by South Africa, not India, and he alleged that this was discriminatory. Broadcaster’s Response to the Complainant[2] TVNZ responded that the complaint was a matter of personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Referral to the Authority[3] Mr Paranjape asked the Authority to review TVNZ’s decision. Authority’s Determination[4] We note that Mr Paranjape’s sole complaint was that TV One did not include coverage of certain cricket matches in its One News bulletins....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during One News – characters used the terms “balls”, “arse” and “bastard” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language of a low level – One News aimed at adult audience – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting the promo during One News – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, was broadcast on TV One between 6pm and 7pm on Wednesday 24 August 2011, during One News which was unclassified....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News discussed former MP Steven Joyce’s valedictory speech in Parliament. The item focused on Mr Joyce recounting in his speech an incident where he had a sex toy thrown at him at Waitangi several years earlier. Footage was shown of Mr Joyce recounting this story during his speech, and of the incident at Waitangi. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this broadcast and in particular showing the footage of the sex toy breached the good taste and decency standard. Given the incident was newsworthy and attracted widespread coverage at the time, as well as the light-hearted nature of Mr Joyce’s speech, and the broadcast’s target audience, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a news report covering the US Democratic Convention breached standards by referring to then US President Donald Trump as ‘Trump’ or ‘Donald Trump’ rather than with the title ‘President’. The broadcast was fair to Mr Trump, considering his position and profile as a politician and public figure. It was not misleading to refer to Mr Trump as ‘Donald Trump’ and the report was unlikely to cause widespread offence. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to Mr Trump as an individual. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

Complaint Promo for film American Beauty – wrongly classified – explicit sexual content at 7. 30pm – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – context - extreme brevity – no upholdStandard 7 – not explicit – classification appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the film American Beauty, to be shown at 8. 30pm that evening, was screened on TV2 at about 7. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. Among the scenes in the promo was one of a couple engaged in sexual intercourse. [2] Dr Exton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the depiction of explicit sexual behaviour, at a time when children were the target audience, breached the standards. [3] In response, TVNZ said the scene was brief and non-explicit and not inappropriate during the PGR time-band. It declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintOne News – item reported survey of teenagers’ attitudes – suggested amongst other things trend to drugs away from alcohol and disrespect for New Zealand Flag and Anthem – inaccurate – biased FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for principles of law – no uphold Standard G6 – not unfair or unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The findings of a survey of teenagers were reported in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 29 October 2001. Among the findings were changes in attitudes to drugs, the National Anthem and the New Zealand Flag. [2] Kenneth Lord complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the findings were biased and amounted to propaganda....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item – street march through Auckland – topless protester shown – 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 item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 5 March 2005 showed a street march through Auckland that day in support of “family values”. A topless woman was among those shown protesting against the views expressed by the marchers. Complaint [2] Luke McKoy complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that showing a topless woman did not observe standards of good taste and decency....