Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Wolf Creek – horror film contained drugging, sexual violence, torture and murder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 10 (violence) – extremely disturbing violence – inadequate classification and warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – outside children’s normally accepted viewing times – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Wolf Creek, an Australian horror film, was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Tuesday 11 March 2007. In the film, two women, Lizzy and Kristy, and their friend, Ben, travelled together to visit the meteorite crater at Wolf Creek National Park. When they returned from the crater, they discovered their car would not go....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an MP who reactivated Dutch citizenship – possible breach of law – MP’s lawyer presented as constitutional specialist and not as legal representative Standard 5 – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster – role as lawyer since reported in other programme – action considered insufficient Standard 4 – balance – not considered by broadcaster – referred to AuthorityProcess Application by complainant for Discovery – declined Application by complainant for Interlocutory Decision – declinedFindings Standard 4 – item’s focus on possibility of by-election – balanced – not upheld Action Taken – a correction broadcast at the time of error should have occurred – now a year later, no order appropriate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Frontseat – contained brief scene from A Clockwork Orange where a man is beaten – programme was classified G and broadcast on a Saturday morning at 7. 55am – allegedly in breach of programme classification and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – scene complained about contained material which was unsuitable for children – broadcaster should have classified as a PGR programme – upheld (majority) Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not exclude material likely to be unsuitable for children – inappropriately classified and broadcast during a G time-band – broadcaster failed to consider the interests of child viewers – upheld (majority)No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Frontseat, a New Zealand-made arts programme, was broadcast at 7. 55am on TV One on Saturday 18 March 2006....

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....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a possible conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. ComplaintFace to Face with Kim Hill – interview about seabed and foreshore issue with John McEnteer – complaint that item unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 4 – “devil's advocate” approach used – interviewee not intimidated – not unfair – not upheld Standard 6 – style enabled issues to be explored – not unbalanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] John McEnteer of the Hauraki Trust Board was interviewed about the seabed and foreshore controversy on Face to Face with Kim Hill at 9. 30pm on TV One on 9 October 2003. [2] Garry Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was unfair and unbalanced as Mr McEnteer was interrupted and had been subjected to aggressive and “Pakeha-biased” questioning....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....

Summary An item in Crimescene broadcast on TV2 on 7 July 1998 between 7. 30–8. 00pm focussed on a case where a man had assumed the identity of a dead child to defraud the student loan scheme. Photographs of a number of people who had been involved in fraudulent schemes in the past accompanied the item. T, whose picture was featured, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his privacy was breached. He pointed out that he had already been convicted, had served his sentence and deserved the right to begin his life afresh. He maintained that his case had no relevance to the item. In its response to the Authority, Television New Zealand Ltd submitted that Mr T’s conviction occurred last year in the context of a high-profile fraud case, for which others were still serving sentences....

ComplaintHolmes – labelling on food packages – false nutrition advice – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During the course of a discussion about providing nutritional information on packaged foods, the presenter described saturated fats as "killer fats". Her comment came during a Holmes item broadcast on TV One on 19 October 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. Valerie James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the presenter had provided false nutritional advice when she warned that saturated fats were harmful. TVNZ emphasised that the item had been concerned with what information customers wanted to find on packaged foods, rather than with whether saturated fats were harmful....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 1 News item discussed corruption charges being laid against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Brief footage from US President Donald Trump’s meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in May 2017 was shown at the end of the item. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of this footage created an unduly negative impression of President Trump and implied he was involved in the corruption, which was unfair. The Authority found the use of the footage in no way implicated President Trump in the alleged corruption. The footage was brief and President Trump was not referred to verbally. Not Upheld: Fairness  Introduction[1] A 1 News item discussed corruption charges being laid against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of an American sitcom Dr. Ken, Dr Ken met his wife’s successful former boyfriend, Dr Kevin O’Connell, and was jealous. At the end of the episode, Dr O’Connell was portrayed as being drunk and asking Dr Ken’s staff for a lift home. The three staff all replied in unison, ‘I’ll do it! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the scene normalised rape and portrayed rape against men as a ‘laughing matter’. In the context of a fictional sitcom, which was intended to be humorous, the scene did not carry any level of invective, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Dr....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance and was misleading by failing to accurately present the perspective of the New Plymouth public who were opposed to Mr Judd’s proposed reforms. While it was framed primarily as a profile piece on Mr Judd, the item’s discussion of the proposed Māori ward triggered the requirement for balance....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint from Māori Television Service (MTS) about an item on 1 News concerning the MTS online COVID-19 programme Tapatahi. MTS argued the piece inaccurately reported it had received nearly $300,000 of Government funding for the programme, and that the Government was calling for a review as Tapatahi was presented by MTS’s Chief Executive. The Authority found the item was materially accurate and MTS was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed the case of a woman and an offensive message which was sent to her by a City Councillor. The road sign which was captured in the message read, ‘Jesus is cuming… open your mouth’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that showing the road sign during the segment was potentially offensive to Christians, in breach of the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that people may find the wording of the sign offensive....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under various standards about an answer during the DUKE Quiz which, in identifying an astronaut who ‘did not set foot on the moon’, stated ‘but then, did anyone really land on the moon? ’. The Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-150 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LIEUTENANT COMMANDER B I FOTHERINGHAM of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with witness – anti-police – unbalanced – partial – prejudice to fair hearing FindingsStandard G6 – eyewitness account necessarily focused on one perspective – balance achieved over time – no uphold Standard G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A witness to the shooting of a young man by a policeman in Waitara was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on 17 July 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item recorded that there was some discrepancy between what the eyewitness had told the police immediately after the incident and his statement to a private investigator some days later. Martyn Stewart complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was an "emotive display of pure sensationalism" which would have incited the public to be biased against the police....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....