Search Rapua

ComplaintOne News – Hector dolphins on the Avon river – comment from observer – "just watching dolphins…sitting like a dork in the rain – use of term "dork" offensive Findings Standard G2 – no breach of good taste and decency – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The word "dork" was used by a man interviewed during an item on Hector dolphins, broadcast on One News on 28 November 2000 at 6. 00pm. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word dork, which he described as a "gutter word for penis" was irrelevant to the appearance of the dolphins. He contended that it should not have been broadcast in an early evening item of high interest to children....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News– teaser for upcoming item on knife crime – contained footage of carving knife and man simulating stabbing motion – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – images used to illustrate story on knife crime – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] One News, broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 5 July 2010, contained a brief eight-second teaser for an upcoming item on proposed legislative changes to reduce knife crime in New Zealand. In the teaser the news reader stated: Cutting down on knife crime – tough new measures that’ll make it harder for young people to buy them over the counter....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported on incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine. The newsreader said, ‘Road blocks are in place and thousands of police and soldiers are patrolling across Israel as it tries to stop a wave of violence’, and then crossed to a correspondent reporting from East Jerusalem. The item also went on to report on other incidents of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, including in Gaza. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item was inaccurate because East Jerusalem is internationally recognised as being part of Palestine, not Israel, and viewers would have been misled into thinking that much of the violence took place in Israel. Upheld: AccuracyNo OrderIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News reported on incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-006:Bertram and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-006 PDF223. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-015:Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015 PDF1008. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-034:Brock and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-034 PDF354. 32 KB...

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-002:Dorf and Television New Zealand Ltd - ID1992-002 PDF59. 04 KB...

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....

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....

ComplaintOne News: Waitangi Day Special – New Zealand flag used to cover tables where participants sat – disrespectful – intention to dishonour flag FindingsStandard G2 – acceptable visual centrepiece – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for the principles of law – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Maori-Pakeha relationships, the Treaty of Waitangi, and issues of nationhood were debated during a One News: Waitangi Day Special broadcast on TV One at 9. 45pm on 6 February 2001. The participants sat at tables which were covered with the New Zealand flag. Thomas Morgan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the New Zealand flag as a table cloth was offensive and dishonourable. Arguing that the use of the flag was symbolic and that there was no intention to dishonour it, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "To Age or Not to Age" – misleading – adverse health outcomes possible – unbalanced – broadcaster (TVNZ) upheld balance complaint – not impartial – broadcaster investigating commissioning possible documentary on dieting and ageing in 2002 – action taken insufficient FindingsImportant information contained in programme – action taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "To Age or Not to Age" was the title of the documentary broadcast by TV One at 8. 30pm on 30 July 2001 in the weekly documentary time slot. Using a number of medical criteria, the programme set out to measure the effectiveness of the approaches promoted by Leslie Kenton for staying healthy and feeling younger....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-014:Housing Corporation of New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-014 PDF528. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-122:Glendorran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-122 PDF269. 28 KB...

SummarySome of the children's programmes screened on Channel 2 over a four day periodbetween 25 and 28 June included Sonic the Hedgehog, Captain N, Swat Cats, KingArthur and the Knights of Justice, James Bond Junior and Mighty Morphin PowerRangers. Ms Bannatyne complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that theseprogrammes were unsuitable for children under 8 years of age because they relied onviolence for their main themes and contained inappropriate language. She suggestedthat such programmes offered poor role models for children and were generally of apoor quality with trite, trivial story lines. She requested that they be discontinued. In response, TVNZ advised that none of the programmes was in breach of anybroadcasting standards and, further, that many of them provided entertaining andstimulating viewing for young minds....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 40/95 Dated the 29th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RICHARD ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R TUNNICLIFF of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with President of Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education, as opposed to daycare – President made comments which reflected negatively on daycare – allegedly unbalanced in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – programme framed the interview as a debate about the merits of “Daycare vs Homecare” but item itself had flavour of advertorial – taking into account likely audience, insufficient balance was provided – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....