Search Rapua

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an item on 1News discussing the Government’s announcement of a new funding package for Pharmac, which included ‘up to seven’ of the 13 cancer drugs earlier promised by the National Party. The item’s introduction questioned, ‘Where does that leave the remaining six cancer-fighting drugs National pledged? ’ The complaint was that the item was inaccurate, unfair and biased, by failing to mention that the Government had committed to replacing the remaining six drugs with ‘alternatives just as good or better’ (which other news outlets had reported). The Authority agreed the item was misleading by omission, by not specifically answering the question of what happened to ‘the remaining six’ drugs – which was a material point and carried public interest, in particular for those counting on receiving the promised medicines....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News reporting on the Government’s financial accounts breached the accuracy standard. The complainant alleged the Political Editor’s statement in the item that “…a bigger tax take has meant the deficit is half what was predicted in the May budget, a saving of more than 9 billion” was inaccurate, as it gave the impression that the lower-than-forecast deficit was achieved entirely from a bigger tax take, when almost a third of the saving came from less Government expenditure than predicted. While acknowledging the statement may have been misleading taken in isolation, the Authority found the brief statement would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in? ’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensiveSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an interview on Breakfast about a proposed cull of Himalayan tahr, the Minister of Conservation, Hon Eugenie Sage, appeared to use the word ‘cunters’ when referring to the educational effort undertaken by tahr hunters. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the Minister’s use of this word during this interview breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The use of the word was an accidental slip of the tongue and it was clear that the Minister intended to refer to ‘hunters’ during this section of the interview. The use of the word was not deliberate nor was it used with any malice or invective....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with female porn star about her thoughts on feminism and sexuality – included footage of porn star wearing lingerie and clips from her pornographic movies – broadcaster upheld complaint under good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken – Standards 1 (good taste and decency) and 9 (children’s interests) – serious breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – costs to the Crown of $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 11 August 2010, a reporter interviewed a female porn star, Nina Hartley, about her life and thoughts on feminism and sexuality....

ComplaintEyes Wide Shut – film – screened at 9. 30pm during school holidays – sexual content – unsuitable for children Findings Standard 1 and Guideline 1a – not relevant Standard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9b & 9c – 9. 30pm not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Eyes Wide Shut was a film broadcast during the school holidays, on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Tuesday 21 January 2003. The film was preceded by a warning which cited "strong sexual content", "nudity" and "drug use", and it was classified AO. [2] Cherry Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that by not providing sufficient information about the film prior to its broadcast, TVNZ failed to consider the interests of children....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item interviewed Christchurch women who wanted to cancel their gym contracts due to the closure or relocation of premises – reported that Configure Express Northlands had relocated but that members could not cancel their contracts without incurring financial loss – barrister gave legal advice that the contracts had been frustrated and were unenforceable – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item contained comments from two women which suggested their issues related solely to relocation, that the gym refused to refund them and that they would be significantly out of pocket – omitted important information about the women’s individual circumstances – impression not mitigated by opportunity given to the complainant to respond to the issues – reasonable to expect Fair Go to adhere to the same high standards the programme imposes on others – complainant…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-042:McNair and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-042 PDF331. 38 KB...

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....

ComplaintOne News – Australian Governor-General – alleged cover-up of sexual abuse – Merepeka Raukawa-Tait interviewed – suggested Australians were hypocritical as their silence may have contributed to abuse – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – item balanced about matter of Governor-General’s tenure – no uphold Standard 5 – item accurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no evidence of denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Controversy over the allegations that the Australian Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, had covered up sex abuse cases when Archbishop of Brisbane was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 22 February 2002. The Chief Executive of Women’s Refuge in New Zealand, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, when interviewed, suggested that the criticism directed at Dr Hollingworth was hypocritical....

ComplaintTaste New Zealand – profiles of some food entrepreneurs included one on Ron Hubbard – did not refer to his membership of the Food and Nutritional Advisory Committee and that Committee’s attitude to soy – unbalanced FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – Standard 4 – item did not deal with controversial issue – standard not relevant – no uphold – advise that future marginal complaints may be considered vexatious and trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Taste New Zealand is an entertainment series about the food industry. The episode broadcast at 8. 00pm on TV One on 25 September 2002 presented some profiles about a number of successful food entrepreneurs. Ron Hubbard of Hubbard Foods Ltd was one of the entrepreneurs featured. [2] Richard James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-019:Seymour and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-019 PDF1015. 04 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-002:Bartlett and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-002 PDF307. 38 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Good Morning – included interview with author and Associate Professor of Psychology Niki Harrè about her new book – Ms Harrè was referred to as a “psychologist” in ‘coming-up’ teaser – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – single reference to “psychologist” in the ‘coming-up’ teaser was not a material point of fact – term used colloquially and not intended to denote technical meaning – any impression created was clarified by the item itself – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Good Morning was broadcast on TV One on 19 October 2011. The episode included an interview with Niki Harrè who was introduced as “author and Associate Professor of Psychology”, about her new book on the psychology of sustainability....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-073–074:Sharp and Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-073, 1993-074 PDF698. 63 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Renters – item showing dispute between tenant and rental agent – allegedly in breach of privacy, also unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair – not upheld. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Renters on TV2 at 8pm on 17 February 2005 showed an altercation between a tenant and a rental agent. The tenant argued with the agent about a sign in the downstairs window which had led to prospective tenants pestering him in the upstairs flat....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – language – “fuck you” – allegedly offensive – warning requiredFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – warning not necessary – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Spooks is a BBC drama series built around the activities of a fictional counter-terrorism unit attached to MI5. MI5 is the government agency responsible for internal security. In an episode beginning at 9. 30pm broadcast on TV One on 24 February 2004, one character said to another “fuck you”. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive and the programme should have been preceded with a warning. Standards [3] TVNZ assessed the complaint under Standard 1 and Guidelines 1a and 1b of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....