Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who is a long-standing voluntary euthanasia campaigner. The item also discussed the history of attempts to legalise voluntary euthanasia in New Zealand and overseas. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item lacked balance. The item did not solely approach voluntary euthanasia from the personal perspective of the interviewee. It included a wider discussion of the voluntary euthanasia debate and law reform that triggered the requirement for presentation of alternative views, which were not presented within the programme or within the period of current interest. Upheld: Controversial Issues No Order  Introduction [1] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who has been a voluntary euthanasia campaigner for the last two decades....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

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. 1992-071:Jackson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-071 PDF290. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-038:Sims and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-038 PDF400. 49 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-015:Dunckley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-015 PDF93. 26 KB...

Summary An item broadcast on One Network News between 6. 00–7. 00 pm on TV One on 12 March 1998 reported on the Auckland trial of Malcolm Rewa who had been charged with murder, and several counts of sexual violation. The item referred to evidence given that day by a witness who had been raped by Rewa ten years previously. Footage showed street signs and the streets where the witness had lived and was attacked, and the gang safe house where she was taken after the attack. The report described her as the girlfriend of a gang member, and used her first name. A complaint was made to the TVNZ newsroom by a family member shortly after. The report was repeated unchanged during Tonight, broadcast at 9. 30 pm the same night....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 88/95 Decision No: 89 /95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALVA LANGFORD of Gisborne and ELISABETH GRUIJTERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

SummaryOne Network News, commencing at 6. 00 pm on TV One on Saturday 12 September 1998, broadcast a lengthy item on the findings of the Starr Report, and its effect on the possibility of impeachment proceedings being taken against President Clinton of the United States. Ms Jeune complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that it was highly offensive for explicit sexual material to be discussed during children’s normal viewing time. The material screened could disturb younger children, or those who were not ready to discuss aspects of sexual behaviour, she maintained. TVNZ responded that the threat of impeachment potentially weakened the President’s leadership, and thus had a worldwide impact. Perjury was the central issue of the impeachment proceedings, and arose from the sexual relationship denied by the President, it continued....

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 1989Breakfast – interview with medical researcher about the effectiveness of treatment by chiropractors – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – programme presented researcher as authoritative – he made a number of inaccurate statements – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 9 March 2009, one of the presenters interviewed a medical researcher, Dr Shaun Holt, about the effectiveness of chiropractors. Dr Holt said that chiropractors were “as good as conventional medicine” for treating back pain, although conventional medicine was not particularly effective because back pain was very hard to treat. He said “by all means see a chiropractor, they may well help,” but that many claimed to treat other medical conditions and research showed that chiropractic was not beneficial for those conditions....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News, Marae and Te Karere – One News newsreader referred to Prince William as the popular choice for the next “King of England” – Marae discussion on constitutional change – presenter and guests referred to “Queen of England” – Te Karere item referred to Princes Charles as the “monarch of England” – all items allegedly inaccurate, and in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 – no basis for complaint – not upheld Standard 5 – not inaccurate – use of phrase “Queen/King of England” acceptable description – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast items on Marae on 14 November 2004, One News on 11 February 2005 and Te Karere on 8 March 2005, all of which referred in some way to the British Royal Family....

ComplaintHolmes – lifting of moratorium on commercial release of genetically modified organisms – studio debate – “Trust and Country Image” report discussed – complainant maintained he accurately quoted report – presenter allegedly misrepresented report – presenter allegedly unfairly criticised complainant Findings Standard 5 – presenter’s introductory statement on report inaccurate – upheld Standard 5 – presenter’s criticism a question of fairness, not accuracy – issue considered under Standard 6 Standard 6 – presenter’s vehement interjection amounted to accusation of deliberate misrepresentation – content, manner and tone of interjection an unfair overreaction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 23 October 2003 dealt with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Sunday – items discussed suppressed evidence from the David Bain trial that had been released by the courts – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsOne News Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item reported on the evidence released by the court in a neutral manner – contained comment from Mr Bain’s supporter Mr Karam – reporter explained reasons for the evidence being suppressed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Sunday Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item contained comment from those individuals whose evidence had been suppressed – contained comment from Mr Karam – Mr Bain treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard…...

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. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of bare breasts and buttocks, and brief frontal shots of two naked women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of naked women not sexualised or intended to titillate – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – programme was appropriately classified PGR – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 August 2007, contained video footage of a number of women featuring bare breasts, buttocks and two brief full frontal shots of naked women....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reporter allegedly made the comment “a line of fools” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 3 (privacy) – material complained about not in broadcasts identified by complainant – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Episodes of One News were broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 19 and 20 October 2010. Complaint [2] P David J Cooke complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that, during a news item, reporter Miriama Kamo had referred to a group of people as “a line of fools”....

ComplaintHolmes – host referred to the WestpacTrust Stadium as the "cake tin" – derogatory phrase – offensive FindingsSection 11(b) – no issue of broadcasting standards raised by this complaint – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The WestpacTrust Stadium in Wellington was referred to as the "cake tin" by the host (Susan Wood) in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 7 February 2003. [2] John McLellan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference was "derogatory". [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr McLellan referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. [4] In its response to the Authority, TVNZ argued that the matter did not raise an issue of broadcasting standards....