Search Rapua

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item, reporting on a national hikoi against the use of 1080, was unbalanced. The item focused on claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Forest & Bird that the increased protest activity was resulting in a rise in threats to staff. The Authority recognised that the item addressed a controversial issue of public importance and found that it pointed to significant viewpoints on this issue, with comment sought from the hikoi organiser, as well as representatives from DOC, Forest & Bird and the Minister of Conservation. The issue was also widely reported in other news media, during the period of current interest, with viewers therefore likely to be aware of the main perspectives on this narrow issue associated with the 1080 debate....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The ITM Fishing Show, the host travelled to Mexico for a sport fishing trip, and used live bait to catch marlin. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the practice of live baiting was cruel and breached standards. The footage was not unexpected in a fishing programme, and the complainant’s concerns relate more to the programme genre in general, and personal lifestyle preferences, which are not a matter of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence Introduction [1] During an episode of The ITM Fishing Show, the host travelled to Mexico for a sport fishing trip. The host and crew used live bait to catch marlin, a traditional method used in Mexico....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-039:Thai Community and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-039 PDF...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-062 Decision No: 1998-063 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland and KATE AND DAVID TURNER of Upper Hutt TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryAn item on One Network News, broadcast on TV One on 26 May 1998 commencing at 6. 00 pm, reported on increased cannabis use among young people in Northland. It referred to the suspension of students from several schools, and included an interview with a student from Kaitaia College. He was asked how long it would take him to get drugs, and replied "about half an hour". The principal of Kaitaia College complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that promises made by the interviewer that the item would not reflect badly on the college were broken. Of the many comments made by that student and another during the interview, which were pertinent to the issue, the one chosen to represent their view had inaccurately left the impression that cannabis was a major issue at the college, he wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – reporter used hidden camera to record footage at a gun show in Auckland – footage included conversation between the undercover reporter and complainant – complainant’s face not pixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfairly presented complainant in a negative light – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Hotel Babylon – sex scene broadcast one minute after the Adults Only watershed – broadcaster upheld complaint under three standards – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 7 (programme classification) and 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster upheld complaint under three standards and counselled appraiser – action taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Hotel Babylon, a BBC drama following the lives of workers at a five-star hotel, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Wednesday 1 October 2008. The programme’s introductory sequence at 8. 31pm included a five-second scene showing a couple having sex. No breasts or genitals were shown, and, although the woman’s naked back could be seen as she straddled a man in bed, her buttocks were covered with a sheet....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an audio tape purporting to carry the voice of Osama Bin Laden – reporter said that “Bin Laden threatened to again take revenge on America as he did on 9/11” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s. 11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News at 6pm on 20 January 2006 reported that an audio tape, purporting to carry the voice of Osama Bin Laden, had been broadcast by a television network in the Middle East. The tape had warned of new terrorist actions against the United States. The reporter said: In the tape that aired on Al Jazeera, Bin Laden threatened to again take revenge on America as he did on 9/11....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Bootylicious – PGR promo – broadcast during One News between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm – crass – objectified women’s bodies – timing of promo unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – promo for programme on recent fashion fad – did not threaten current norms of decency and taste – not upheld Standard 7 (appropriate classification) – promo classified “PGR News” – PGR appropriate classification – not upheld Standard 7 (compliance with classification band) and Guideline 7b – One News (although itself unclassified) is in G time-band – PGR promo did not comply with classification band – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster considered children’s interests in rating promo PGR – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary A news item on Midday reported on increasing lawlessness and the use of vigilante justice amongst black communities in South Africa. It focussed on a group of vigilantes avenging the alleged pack rape of a young woman, and included footage of the accused men being beaten by the woman and some vigilantes. The item was broadcast on TV One on 29 April 1999, and repeated in One Network News at 6. 00 pm. Mrs Ripley complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that graphic footage of defenceless people being beaten and kicked, preceded only by what she said was a "quiet warning from the news-reader", should only be shown in the late news, if at all. Such violent scenes should not be shown at a time when children and young teenagers were able to watch, she wrote....

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with eye-witnesses – failure to observe standards consistent with maintenance of law and orderFindings(1) Standard G5 – no prejudice to any proceedings or disrespect for principles of law – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Waitara couple who had witnessed some of the events which resulted in the shooting by police of Stephen Wallace was interviewed on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 2 May 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. I B Owen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was tantamount to "trial by television" and breached the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

ComplaintNews item about magazine for divorced people – offensive behaviour – picture of nude couple having sex FindingsStandard G2 – not inappropriate subject matter – momentary image – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Divorced people were providing a new market for entrepreneurs in the magazine industry, according to a news report on One News broadcast on 28 September 2000 at about 6. 20pm. Pages which were shown from a magazine included a picture of an apparently nude couple. Glenyss Barker, secretary of Viewers for Television Excellence (VOTE), complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the picture, which she said showed a nude couple having sex. She said it was inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children would be watching television....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about a convicted murderer refusing a heart transplant – included footage of interviews from Sunday and mentioned that the full Sunday item would be broadcast later that evening – allegedly in breach of responsible programming FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – item was a legitimate news story in its own right – guideline 8d does not apply to promos – viewers not deceived or disadvantaged – 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 6 December 2009, reported on a convicted murderer who was refusing a heart transplant. The presenter introduced the item by saying: He’s served his time, 14 years for a murder that shocked the country back in 1990....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News covered ‘the Foreign Minister’s controversial payment of $11. 5 million towards businessman Hmood Al-Ali Al-Khalaf’s Saudi farm’. It reported that Minister Murray McCully had ‘struck the deal to avoid a $30 million legal threat’, but then denied that there had been a legal threat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair to the Minister by failing to distinguish between Mr Al-Khalaf merely assessing his legal position and actually threatening legal action, and consequently misrepresenting the Minister’s position. The issue arose through the use of ambiguous language, both by the broadcaster and by the Minister, and did not justify the Authority upholding a breach of standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item investigated a mother’s concerns following her son getting severe sunburn despite applying Banana Boat SPF50 sunscreen, and more broadly how sunscreens are tested under New Zealand regulations, and whether the public should be able to rely on claims on sunscreen labels. The Authority found the mother’s comments were clearly her opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply, and the programme was not otherwise inaccurate or misleading. The programme did not allege Banana Boat sunscreen does not work, nor that it does not comply with regulatory requirements. The complainant, as the company responsible for Banana Boat, was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to issues raised in the story and its response was fairly presented. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...