Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – use of the word “shit” – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter used the word “shit” as an expression of his pain and frustration – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 23 March 2011, one of the presenters discussed his frustration with attempting to assemble a “spring-free” trampoline. Having nearly finished putting the trampoline together, the presenter discovered that he had inserted the rods under the trampoline into the wrong holes. He remarked, “So we have to undo all those? Shit. ” He went on to say, “Getting them out is almost worse than getting them in, and more hazardous....

The Authority has upheld two complaints concerning the accuracy of a brief 1News item on 15 November 2024 about heightened security in Paris following violence the previous week around a football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam. The item reported, ‘Thousands of police are on the streets of Paris over fears of antisemitic attacks…That's after 60 people were arrested in Amsterdam last week when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters. ’ TVNZ upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis the item ‘lacked the nuance’ of earlier reporting on the events, by emphasising the ‘antisemitic’ descriptor while omitting to mention the role of the Maccabi fans in the lead-up to the violence. The Authority agreed with this finding and further found the action taken by TVNZ was insufficient....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-055 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-101 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M R BRIDER of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 94/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R J ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-160 Dated the 21st day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SIEGFRIED BAUER of Raetihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 30/95 Dated the 11th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R J ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

Interlocutory Decision Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Interlocutory applications for disclosure of additional material and formal hearing – complainant complained about total of seven programmes on TVNZ concerning Te Tai Hauauru by-election and Māori PartyDecision on interlocutory applications Request for production of additional information – not required in order for Authority to determine complaints – declined Request for formal hearing – not required in all circumstances of case – declinedThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Factual Background[1] Peter Wakeman stood as an independent candidate in the 2004 by-election in the Te Tai Hauauru electorate, which was required following the resignation of the Hon Tariana Turia from the Labour caucus. [2] Mr Wakeman polled fourth of six candidates in the by-election, receiving 80 votes....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an MP who reactivated Dutch citizenship – possible breach of law – MP’s lawyer presented as constitutional specialist and not as legal representative Standard 5 – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster – role as lawyer since reported in other programme – action considered insufficient Standard 4 – balance – not considered by broadcaster – referred to AuthorityProcess Application by complainant for Discovery – declined Application by complainant for Interlocutory Decision – declinedFindings Standard 4 – item’s focus on possibility of by-election – balanced – not upheld Action Taken – a correction broadcast at the time of error should have occurred – now a year later, no order appropriate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – item reported Government to pay defence bill for depositions hearing of private prosecution of police officer charged with murder – featured as unusual event whereas complainant claimed that it was standard practice – not consistent with legal principles – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 2, 4, 5, and 6 – news selection issue – not broadcasting standards matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Government’s decision to pay the defence costs at the depositions hearing of the private prosecution of Constable Abbott for the murder of Stephen Wallace was reported as a "bolt from the blue" in an item on One News on Saturday 15 June 2002. One News is broadcast daily on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – character used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” – 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] Facelift, a satirical programme which lampooned politicians and other high profile New Zealanders, screened on TV One at 10. 05pm on 19 September 2005. On this occasion, Facelift ridiculed television coverage of the election results two nights earlier. The character playing TV One’s political editor, Mark Sainsbury, used the words “Jesus” and “Christ”. Complaint [2] Brian Stratford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character had used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” as exclamations. He considered that this was blasphemous and offensive....

Complaint One News – war in Iraq – weapons of mass destruction described as cause of the war – inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 – expression of opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Weapons of mass destruction were described as the "whole cause" of the war in Iraq in a news item reporting on the day’s events in Basra, broadcast on One News at 6. 00pm on 8 April 2003. [2] Bill Leonard complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the statement was inaccurate and should have been introduced with the words, "The US claims that …". [3] In response, TVNZ contended that the true causes of any war required an historical perspective. It also argued that the reporter advanced the claim with some scepticism....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – use of archive footage of haka during item about foreshore and seabed dispute – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – use of footage not misleading or inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – use not unfair to any person or group – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Archive footage of a haka performed at Waitangi beach was used in a Holmes item about the dispute over ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The programme was broadcast on 19 August 2003 at 7. 00pm on TV One. [2] Wiremu Te Rauna Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the archive footage was inaccurate and amounted to “fraud and betrayal”, as it had no connection to the seabed and foreshore debate....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby – comedy series about a politically incorrect relief teacher – teacher threatened to sodomise a pupil – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, a comedy series about a politically incorrect teacher in a New Zealand school, the main character threatened to sodomise a pupil if he refused to name which of his classmates had drawn a crude cartoon on the blackboard. The episode screened on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 May 2005. Complaint [2] Dame Laurie Salas complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was not something a viewer would expect in “supposedly responsible” television....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

ComplaintEdwards at Large – interview with complainant – host a media adviser to Prime Minister – programme funded by NZ On Air of which host’s wife was a board member – questions about these issues raised in Parliament by complainant – complainant alleged the item unbalanced and partial – broadcaster upheld complaint that programme was partial – written apology – complainant dissatisfied with both extent of complaint upheld and action taken FindingsStandard 4 – balanced debate – no uphold Action taken – letter included TVNZ’s Chief Executive’s explanation – sufficient – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Mr Hide MP was interviewed on Edwards at Large about some questions he had asked in Parliament concerning the funding of the programme and the linkages between the host, Dr Brian Edwards, his wife Judy Callingham, the Labour Party, and NZ On Air....