Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported on Australia’s recent attempts to reduce pollution by introducing a carbon tax scheme – referred to “pollution”, “polluters” and “carbon” – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item used simplified language to convey scientific concepts to the average viewer – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 July 2011, reported on Australia’s recent attempts to reduce pollution by introducing a carbon tax scheme. The item contained the following statements:“Australia is following New Zealand’s lead on reducing pollution by unveiling a new carbon tax scheme. ” (newsreader) “The science is clear. Our planet is warming. That warming is caused by carbon pollution by human activity and we need to cut carbon pollution....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about dispute between two local councils in Manawatu region – stated that “Horizons Regional Council is taking Palmerston City Council to Court because it says the city is polluting the Manawatu River with sewage” – out-of-focus image of cattle grazing was displayed during the introduction to the item – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – image of cattle was blurry and difficult to discern – was used as visual wallpaper for introduction to item relating to pollution in rivers – image was not related to the item, but the item made it clear the focus was on pollution from sewage so viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – farmers are not a section of the community to which the standard applies – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included footage of rugby player mouthing the words “fucking bullshit” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language inaudible which reduced its potential to offend – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – language would have bypassed most children as they would have to have been actively watching to understand what was said – news not targeted at, nor likely to appeal to, children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on TV One on 28 April 2012, reported on the fate of the Auckland Blues rugby team following their eighth successive loss....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with President of Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education, as opposed to daycare – President made comments which reflected negatively on daycare – allegedly unbalanced in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – programme framed the interview as a debate about the merits of “Daycare vs Homecare” but item itself had flavour of advertorial – taking into account likely audience, insufficient balance was provided – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-047:Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NZ) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-047 PDF267. 19 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-091:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-091 PDF374. 61 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-174:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-174 PDF216. 25 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-031:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-031 PDF188. 21 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-060–062:Sharp, Nelson and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-060, 1992-061, 1992-062 PDF858. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-088:Health Action and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-088 PDF349. 47 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-013:Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-013 PDF...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that an episode of Jeremy Kyle, a talk show dealing with relationship breakdowns between guests, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant’s objections related to the nature of the series in general, rather than specific content in this episode. While elements could have caused discomfort or distress for viewers, the episode was consistent with audience expectations of the talk show genre, was rated PGR and was broadcast at a time when AO programmes are permitted, during the school term, so children were unlikely to be watching....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement by TVNZ’s Seven Sharp reporter that a film was set ‘amid a nationwide confiscation of Māori land’ during an interview with actor Temuera Morrison. The complainant alleged confiscations were not nationwide, and that Māori land dispossession can be attributed in part to legitimate land sales to the Crown. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material in the context of a segment focusing on Morrison’s acting career and promotion of a film, and that, in any case, it was not misleading to refer to ‘nationwide confiscation’ considering the extent of contested Māori land dispossession which occurred in the relevant period. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the documentary series, The Hard Stuff with Nigel Latta, titled ‘Selling Ourselves Short’, focused on the topic of New Zealand’s economy, comparing our standard of living today with the 1960s-70s. The episode examined some of New Zealand’s traditional and upcoming export industries, such as dairy farming, forestry, pharmaceuticals, technology and fashion, and featured interviews with farmers, business owners, economists and academics. At the beginning of the episode, Mr Latta stated, ‘We’re rated as one of the best places in the world to do business and we’re not corrupt. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Latta’s statement was inaccurate and that the episode was unbalanced because it did not address New Zealand’s ‘extensive corruption’ as a reason for our underperforming economy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Water Patrol, a reality TV series following the work of the Maritime Police, showed footage of the complainant, PG, in his boat in the Marlborough Sounds. The police vessel approached him from behind and asked him to stop his motor. The complainant was caught off-guard, apparently not wearing any pants. As he stood up to engage with the police, the fact he was wrapping a towel around his waist was highlighted and the police officer turned to the camera and commented, with a smile on his face, 'very unusual'....

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....