Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News and a later ONE News update showed a highly-ranked New Zealand mixed martial artist's loss in an Ultimate Fighting Championship match, in which he was kicked and punched repeatedly in the head. The Authority declined to uphold two complaints that the footage was excessively violent because the level of physicality was not unexpected and acceptable in the context of a sport news story covering a fight. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News and a later ONE News update showed a highly-ranked New Zealand mixed martial artist's loss in an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) match, in which he was kicked and punched repeatedly in the head until the referee stopped the fight....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – man shown gathering scallops – statement in programme that “there was sufficient there anyway to issue him with a couple of infringement notices” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – filmed in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on Coastwatch broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 14 February 2005 showed a diver approached by Ministry of Fisheries officers while gathering scallops. The fisheries officer told him that he should only have collected 60 scallops, whereas he had 104 scallops on the boat. The fisheries officer explained that this was “not in the area of what we consider to be a serious offence”, and the diver said that he had been trying to do things by the book....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bogan’s Heroes – extreme satire about prison life – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and violenceFindingsStandard 1 – majority considers contextual factors sufficient to avoid a breach – not upheld Standard 10 – majority considers violence unrealistic and farcical – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 20 July 2005 at 11. 25pm, TV2 broadcast Bogan’s Heroes, a satire about criminals and life in prison. Complaint [2] Mr Cozens complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was tasteless and offensive. He noted that the programme was described in the Listener as an AO-rated “extreme prison based comedy”. [3] He considered that the programme was excessively violent, indecent, and extremely offensive....

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Goober Brothers – part of Studio 2 – inventors of “Ja-Handal” – man performing handstands – dog urinated on man’s face – allegedly offensive and not in children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – type of humour depicted appeals to children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Goober Brothers was shown as part of the children’s programme Studio 2. It was a New Zealand-made series of two-minute items featuring mad scientists who come up with weird inventions. The “Ja-Handal”, a jandal for hands, was the invention shown on the episode broadcast on TV2 at 3. 20pm on 16 April 2004....

ComplaintUnsolved – examined murder and rape of Alicia O’Reilly in 1980 – disclosed address where crimes occurred – breach of privacy of present owners FindingsPrivacy – no highly offensive private facts disclosed – no intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Unsolved examined serious crimes which have not been solved. The murder and rape of six-year-old Alicia O’Reilly was the unsolved crime dealt with in the episode broadcast at 8. 00pm on TV One on 13 May 2002. The programme included the name of the street and the number of the house where the crimes occurred, and included visuals of the house. [2] Explaining that she and her husband were the current owners of the house, Carol Irwin complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – programme about work of New Zealand police – filmed execution of search warrant at complainant’s property – programme included footage of street, driveway and house, the complainant and other occupants – stated complainant was subsequently convicted for possession of cannabis and fined – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – MA had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – MA did not provide consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of privacy – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989AMP Business – reported commodity prices without reference to currency – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers interested in commodity prices would have known the currency was US dollars so would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to individuals “taking part or referred to” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During AMP Business, broadcast on TV One at 6am on 15 April 2011, the programme’s presenter reported on commodity prices for oil and gold. A graphic showing these prices was displayed on-screen, and the prices were displayed as numbers, without any reference to currency. For example, “Gold Price” was reported as “1472. 20”, which was up “16. 45”. The presenter stated, “commodities, a little bit mixed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported on Australian Open Tennis Championships – reporter commented with regard to Serena Williams’ performance, “The American was almost schizophrenic – she hit four double faults in one game, as well as an ace” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration, and accuracy standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “schizophrenic” was used colloquially as an adjective to describe Ms Williams’ sporting performance – comment did not carry any invective or malice – use of the term did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of term “schizophrenic” was not a statement of fact – amounted to commentary and was therefore exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-092:Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-092 PDF394. 31 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-005:Auckland District Law Society and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-005 PDF1. 07 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-045:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-045 PDF316. 8 KB...

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. 1990-001:New Zealand Immigration Service (Yealsby) and Television New Zealand Ltd - ID1990-001213. 35 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-058:Shepherd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-058 PDF323. 74 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence in Christchurch following the earthquakes. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that re-enactments showing domestic violence denigrated men and were ‘gender biased’. The Authority has previously declined to uphold a similar complaint from the complainant, which ought to have put him notice of the likely outcome of this decision. The re-enactments were visual wallpaper only, and the gender of the actors was not material. Declined to determine: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction[1] A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence over the Christmas period in Christchurch, observed in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes. The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 20 December 2013....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on an influx of refugees and migrants crossing the border from the United States of America (US) into Canada to claim refugee status. The reporter said that this influx was due to uncertainty after the election of Donald Trump as President, and a ‘loophole’ in the law which meant that ‘if a person can make it onto Canadian soil, they’re able to claim asylum’. The Authority found that the term ‘loophole’ was a reasonable description of a gap in the 2004 Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, in which refugee claimants seeking entry into Canada by crossing the border illegally would not be turned back to the US (as the first safe country), but rather arrested and allowed to claim refugee status in Canada....

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...