Search Rapua

Complaint Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their privacy....

ComplaintSunday – investigation of Dr Richard Gorringe who had been found guilty of professional misconduct and disgraceful conduct through use of alternative medicines – biased – unfair – misleading FindingsStandard 4 – reasonable opportunities given – not unbalanced – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Gorringe dealt with fairly as ample opportunity given to present views – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The use by Dr Richard Gorringe of alternative medicine, alongside conventional medicine, was investigated in an item broadcast on Sunday at 7. 30pm on TV One on 2 September 2003. Dr Gorringe had been found guilty by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on two charges of professional misconduct and one of disgraceful conduct. [2] Margaret Kirk complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unfair, and trivialised the work of Dr Gorringe....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved a man with extensive burn injuries seeking revenge on his victims by burning them alive – showed victims being covered in petrol and set on fire – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and violence FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – high degree of explicit violence and disturbing themes constituted strong adult material that warranted an AO 9. 30pm classification and later time of broadcast – programme incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – episode contained explicit violence – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – level of violence in 8. 30pm broadcast was unacceptable in context, despite AO classification – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

ComplaintShred – offensive behaviour – offensive language – sexually explicit graffiti named people living in Ohakune – privacy of named individuals breached FindingsG2 – currently accepted norms of decency and taste – uphold Privacy – no private facts disclosed – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statementCosts of $1000 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Graffiti seen on a playground structure in Ohakune formed the basis for a skit on the snowboarding programme Shred, broadcast on TV2 at 10. 30pm on 7 September 2000. The presenter read out some of the sexually explicit graffiti, which included the first names of several people. Dennis Beytagh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that he objected "in the strongest possible terms" to the content of the programme. He said he had never heard nor seen such explicit obscenities and descriptions of aberrant sexual practices being broadcast....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Work and Income computer error leading to disclosure of information about some Work and Income clients, and ramifications for beneficiaries – allegedly sensationalist, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – Ministry’s position not adequately presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained many inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Ministry and its chief executive – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast {1} An item on One News, broadcast on TV One on 27 November 2003, reported on a computer error made by Work and Income, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, which had caused some information about some Work and Income clients to be sent to other clients....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – satirical take-off of documentary Super Size Me – presenter purportedly eating nothing but Middle-Eastern food for a month – developed stereotypical Muslim characteristics – ultimately ended up as Islamic terrorist – allegedly denigratory of Muslims FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g (denigration) – item clearly satirical – intended to satirise not only Super Size Me but also media’s stereotypical portrayal of Muslims and Islam – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On Eating Media Lunch on 22 July 2004, at 9:30pm, presenter Jeremy Wells satirised the recent documentary film, Super Size Me, in which the filmmaker ate nothing but McDonalds for 30 days and measured the effects on his health....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog” – alleged frequent use of the word “fuck” – 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 episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 23 September 2005. During the introductory sequence, the host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog”. Complaint [2] Malcolm Anderson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference to “wanking off a dog” was disgusting, and in breach of good taste and decency....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint from Māori Television Service (MTS) about an item on 1 News concerning the MTS online COVID-19 programme Tapatahi. MTS argued the piece inaccurately reported it had received nearly $300,000 of Government funding for the programme, and that the Government was calling for a review as Tapatahi was presented by MTS’s Chief Executive. The Authority found the item was materially accurate and MTS was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The complainant referred a complaint concerning an item broadcast on 1 News accompanied by submissions in excess of 100 pages, indicating further submissions would be required. The Authority ordered the complainant to resubmit the complaint in a more proportionate form, constituting a single submission not exceeding 2,000 words, within 20 working days of this decision. Order to resubmit complaint in a form not exceeding 2,000 words within 20 working days...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported that long-term contraceptive devices had been implanted, without consent, in at least three women who had an abortion at the Epsom Day Unit. The reporter said, 'The Epsom Day Unit is a place where women come to exercise their right to choose'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase 'right to choose' materially misrepresented the abortion law in New Zealand. Although the statement was legally incorrect, it was peripheral to the focus of the item and so was not a material point of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News reported that long-term contraceptive devices had been implanted, without consent, in at least three women who had an abortion at the Epsom Day Unit....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – resident dog trainer worked to retrain the dogs to be better behaved – dog training methods allegedly outdated and harmful – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes did not contain any material inaccuracies – commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as such – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes appropriately classified PGR – episodes contained clear disclaimer – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Horace in Slow Motion – showed cartoon pig ‘picking his nose and eating it’ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Horace in Slow Motion, a 45-second cartoon about Horace the pig, showed Horace ‘picking his nose and eating it’. The footage was accompanied by audio of children saying, “Ewww, you’re gross, Horace. ” The short programme was classified G (General) and broadcast at 5pm on Tuesday 18 June 2013 on TV2. [2] Jason Walker made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that it was “unacceptable [in] today’s society to pick you[r] nose and eat it”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 8/94 Dated the 21st day of February 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-021:New Zealand Fishing Industry Association and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-021 PDF916. 23 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-013:Papprill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-013 PDF560. 09 KB...