Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an episode of 20/20 aired on free-to-air television on a Sunday at 9am, detailing serial killer Ted Bundy’s crimes, motivations, and background, breached the children’s interests and programme information standards. The Authority noted that the broadcast presented in detail some potentially distressing and disturbing content, and themes including sexual violence and perversion, murder, and abduction, without any audience advisory or warning for this content. Additionally, the Authority considered the content and themes were suited for broadcast during the M timeband (suitable for a mature audience), rather than during PG time (which indicated the content was not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers under adult supervision). Viewers were not given sufficient information or signposting about the programme’s likely content to enable them to make informed choices about whether they, or children in their care, should view the broadcast....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 31/94 Dated the 26th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

ComplaintSunday – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin charged with murder of terminally ill mother – some other views advanced – unbalanced ComplaintHolmes – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin – no other views advanced – unbalanced FindingsSunday – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item not a debate about euthanasia and included range of personal stories – not unbalanced – no uphold FindingsHolmes – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item involved interview with current newsmaker – her views about euthanasia balanced by other items during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary – Sunday [1] Euthanasia was the subject of an item on Sunday broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 March 2003....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item allegedly contained comments that were inconsistent with BBC report – allegedly in breach of accuracy standardFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster unable to locate comments specified by the complainant – Authority therefore unable to assess broadcasting standards against those comments – Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] J M Baxter made a formal complaint to TVNZ about an item broadcast on One News at 6pm on 22 September 2012. He asserted that the item was inconsistent with a BBC report which quoted the United States Attorney General saying that New Zealand had opened its ports to US war ships....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on Hone Harawira’s travel expenses – stated that he “racked up a $35,000 travel bill. . . that’s almost $4000 more than the Māori Party’s total travel bill” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair to Mr Harawira FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – comparison based on Parliamentary Service expenditure only – failed to mention that Māori Party MPs also received funds from Ministerial Services – created misleading impression that Mr Harawira spent more than the entire Māori Party on travel – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hone Harawira is a political figure who should expect robust criticism – not unfair – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 28 April 2011, reported on MP Hone Harawira’s travel expenses....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Police Ten 7 – “Bad boys” episode looked at “bad boys’ most memorable moments” – contained coarse language and nudity which were censored – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – content would not have been unexpected in a long-running reality series about the work of the police – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme preceded by clear warning advising parental guidance – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the…...

ComplaintTV2 Big Comedy Gala – offensive language – "fuck, shit, motherfucker" – religious skit – denigrated Christians FindingsStandard G2 – stand-up comedy – AO time – preceded by a warning – offensive language used infrequently – not inappropriate in context – no uphold Standard G13 – did not amount to denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme TV2 Big Comedy Gala, featuring stand-up comedians in a night club setting, was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 05pm on 19 May 2001. A M Langford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that some of the language was very offensive, and one skit ridiculed the Christian faith. In reply, TVNZ acknowledged that the broadcast might not have been to everyone’s taste....

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. 1992-092:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-092 PDF786. 99 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-082:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-082 PDF1. 41 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-170:Kent and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-170 PDF401. 5 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold three complaints about an episode of Sunday that discussed freedom of expression and hate speech and which featured edited excerpts of an interview with Canadian commentators, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern. The Authority found the broadcast was balanced, containing a wide range of perspectives on a controversial issue of public importance, being the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in New Zealand. The Authority also found that the interview with Mr Molyneux and Ms Southern was used to illustrate points relevant to the wider topic but was not in itself the central focus of the item. The pending visit of Mr Molyneux and Ms Southern was therefore used to frame the issues in the item....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Paramedics, which twice played footage of a young man suffering an allergic reaction exclaiming ‘Fuck, I can’t breathe’, with the audio censored so the word was partially silenced, and the subtitles uncensored. The episode aired during an M classification time band, at 7. 30pm, and was preceded by a warning which stated ‘This programme is rated M. It contains coarse language. ’ The ‘ML’ rating was also broadcast after each advertisement break, with the ‘L’ advisory symbol indicating ‘language may offend’. In the context, the language used would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress, and was not beyond what viewers would have reasonably expected from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

In an item about road rage on Seven Sharp, the presenters were discussing slow drivers when Jeremy Wells made the comments ‘grandpa’ and ‘always a grandpa’. Media Matters in NZ complained the comment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial or frivolous. Declined to determine: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a 1News report on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged the broadcast’s framing of the Treaty principles as partnership, participation, and protection (the Three Ps) was ‘incomplete and confused’, and describing the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’ erroneously suggested the Bill was rewriting the Treaty principles. The broadcast stated, ‘there are no principles that have been expressly defined or set out in law’ and recited the Three Ps as the ‘current main three principles’. In the context of the segment, the reporter’s comments were unlikely to mislead viewers, and any potential harm caused was not at a level justifying intervention. Additionally, it was not misleading, in the context, to refer to the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’. Not Upheld: Accuracy...