Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on the England rugby team’s tour of New Zealand – correspondent made disparaging remarks about the efforts of the English team – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not primarily aimed at the type of material complained about – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 22 June 2008, presented a round-up of the English rugby team’s tour of New Zealand. The item began with a One News rugby correspondent detailing which members of the New Zealand rugby team had been injured during the tour and the problems the team was facing....

ComplaintShortland Street – episodes about a child of drug dealer in coma having taken a capsule of cannabis oil – drug dealer said she gave child small amounts of cannabis oil to calm him as he was ADHD – offensive – encouraged illegal behaviour – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a and Standard 2 – use of cannabis oil to treat ADHD child shown as unacceptable and irresponsible – no uphold Standards 4 and 5 – do not apply to fictional programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The treatment of a child "Max", who had taken a capsule of cannabis oil was a story line in an episode of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 17 July 2002....

One News item available for viewing on TVNZ’s website – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaint FindingNot “broadcasting” within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – no jurisdiction to consider complaint This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] A One News item, which was broadcast on TV One on 15 May 2010, was subsequently available to be viewed on TVNZ’s website. Complaint [2] Through his solicitor, James Johnson made a complaint about the One News item to Television New Zealand Ltd. He acknowledged that, as more than 20 working days had passed since the television broadcast of that item had occurred, he was unable to make a formal complaint about that broadcast. However, he argued, because the item was still available for viewing on TVNZ’s website his complaint was within the 20 working day timeframe....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Sunday feature about sexually explicit social media sites breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. In the context, particularly noting the public interest value of the feature, audience expectations, and nature of the programme, the Authority considered the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence, or undermine widely shared community standards. The Authority found the content did not go beyond what the audience could reasonably expect of the programme, and the introduction was sufficient to signpost the type of content to be expected. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured an interview with singer Robbie Williams, during which he referred to his desire to be a naturist and said he had a small ‘cock’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment was distasteful. The comment was at the low end of the spectrum of sexual material and was not outside audience expectations of Seven Sharp, which is an unclassified current affairs/entertainment programme aimed at adults. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured an interview with singer Robbie Williams. On the subject of his wish to be a naturist, he said:I always said to my past girlfriends, it’s not a small cock, I’ve just got massive thighs, and it’s an optical illusion. And it’s not true – it is quite small....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-168:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-168 PDF319. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-011:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-011 PDF516. 75 KB...

In a Seven Sharp item, a presenter expressed his surprise by asking an interviewee ‘how the bejesus did a snake get into New Zealand’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the item breached the good taste and decency standard. While acknowledging terms such as ‘Jesus’ and its variations like ‘bejesus’ may be offensive to some, the Authority found expressions of this nature used as exclamations, will not likely cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 139/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID TROOP of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-061 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MURRAY ELSTON of Cromwell Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Question of Justice – documentary examining the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members – included police video, photographs of the crime scene, and re-enactments of the murders – allegedly unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme explored all different perspectives – not unfair to David Bain – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – murder scenes not gratuitous – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A Question of Justice, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 12 May 2005, examined the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members. The programme included police video and photographs of the crime scene, plus re-enactments of the murders and other scenes....

ComplaintHolmes – lifting of moratorium on commercial release of genetically modified organisms – studio debate – “Trust and Country Image” report discussed – complainant maintained he accurately quoted report – presenter allegedly misrepresented report – presenter allegedly unfairly criticised complainant Findings Standard 5 – presenter’s introductory statement on report inaccurate – upheld Standard 5 – presenter’s criticism a question of fairness, not accuracy – issue considered under Standard 6 Standard 6 – presenter’s vehement interjection amounted to accusation of deliberate misrepresentation – content, manner and tone of interjection an unfair overreaction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 23 October 2003 dealt with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item about the delay in election results from the Wellington local body elections – reporter described the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system as “discredited” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – focus of item not on STV system – no balance required on STV issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – in light of focus of item, word “discredited” referred to administration of STV system, not system itself – sufficient basis for reporter to use word accurately in this context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight on TV One at around 10. 35pm on 20 October 2004 reported that, twelve days after the local body election, the final vote for the Wellington City Council had been announced....

ComplaintPromo – 60 Minutes – "pissed off" – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the effects of broadcast on children – broadcaster not mindful of explicit material in promo FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV One at 6. 50pm on 10 November 2001. The promo was for an item on Dean Barker, New Zealand’s America’s Cup skipper. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about Mr Barker’s use in the promo of the phrase "pissed off". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....