Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-041:Children's Media Watch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-041 PDF788. 47 KB...

Summary A dispute between neighbours was put to the audience of You be the Judge for resolution in the episode broadcast on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The item included footage, filmed by the aggrieved neighbour, of two people leaving his neighbour’s home at 4. 31am. He described such visitors to his neighbour in general terms as her "zombie mates. " C, one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that he and his wife considered that the broadcast had invaded their privacy. First, he argued, the complainant should never have filmed them, and secondly, the footage should never have been broadcast. He said they also objected to being described as "zombie mates"....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-105 Dated the 14th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MELANIE SMITH and TERESA SAMMUT-SMITH of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-167 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (NEW ZEALAND) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-018 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUE WHITE of Lake Hawea Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 108/94 Dated the 7th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sensing Murder – two psychics attempted to uncover information about a man’s disappearance in 1985 – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – factual information contained in the programme was accurate – psychics’ commentary about the murders was presented as their own perspective – factual material clearly distinguished from opinion, analysis and comment – no evidence viewers were misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sensing Murder, broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 March 2010, considered the disappearance of a man in 1985. His body was never found, and his family wanted to know what had happened to him....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

ComplaintFair Go – “Fair Go Ad Awards” – presenter lampooned margarine advertisement – sexual suggestions allegedly offensive and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 – sexual innuendo oblique and inexplicit – comedy – not upheld Standard 9 – not unsuitable for children in context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The annual “Fair Go Ad Awards” included a segment during which the presenter lampooned an advertisement for margarine, which had been nominated for “worst ad”. The episode of Fair Go was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 15 October 2003. [2] Geoff New complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the parodies contained sexually suggestive material which breached standards of good taste and decency and was unsuitable for children. [3] In response, TVNZ disagreed that the programme breached broadcasting standards....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tomorrow La Scala! – Lexus Sunday Theatre – operetta company in maximum security prison using prisoners to rehearse and perform the musical “Sweeney Todd” – included scenes of male rape and consensual heterosexual intercourse, and use of word “fuck” – alleged excessive violence, alleged offensive behaviour and language, and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – not screened in children’s normal viewing time – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) and Guideline 10d – violence was graphic but acceptable given theme of play and care shown with detailed warning – not upheld Comment Authority to consult further on arguments for more explicit warnings This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tomorrow La Scala! was broadcast on TV One’s “Lexus Sunday Theatre” beginning at 8....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – carried out testing on imported and locally produced olive oil – stated that sensory panel was “IOC accredited” and its supervisor was “the only person qualified by the IOC… to convene a sensory panel” – reported that all European imports failed sensory test and two failed chemical test – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – references to IOC accreditation were inaccurate and gave greater status to the testing than was justified – broadcaster was put on notice that the testing was not “IOC accredited” but nevertheless made statements of fact to that effect – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – notwithstanding finding one aspect of the programme was inaccurate, complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and mitigate any resulting unfairness, and its response was adequately presented – not upheld No Order This headnote does…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-077:Wells and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-077 PDF301. 25 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1C)(C)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to China as “the godless state” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “godless” used in this context to mean “without a god”, not “wicked” – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not constitute a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “godless” to mean “without a god” did not jeopardise editorial independence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, made by the BBC, was broadcast at 6pm on 25 December 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rugby World Cup Semi-Final: France v Wales – commentator used the word “Jesus” with reference to Wales being given a penalty kick – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “Jesus” used as exclamation and spontaneous reaction during a live sports programme – not used in derogatory or abusive manner – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the Rugby World Cup Semi-Final between France and Wales, broadcast on TV One at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – resident dog trainer worked to retrain the dogs to be better behaved – dog training methods allegedly outdated and harmful – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes did not contain any material inaccuracies – commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as such – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes appropriately classified PGR – episodes contained clear disclaimer – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....