Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-104:New Zealand Police and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-104 PDF2. 21 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: Did Mark Lundy Kill His Wife and Daughter?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with central figure in reality television show There’s Something About Miriam – discussed her transsexual status and contact with contestants on show – allegedly breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – nothing indecent or distasteful to the extent of breaching standard – interview conducted appropriately given subject matter – not upheld Principle 7 (programme classification) – programme news or current affairs – not classified – was sufficiently mindful of the possibility of child viewers – no warning required as contents adequately signposted – not upheld Principle 9 (children’s interests) – news and current affairs programme not directed at children – interview conducted appropriately – sufficiently mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

FindingAuthority declines to accept the complaint on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction to do so. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] Between 5 and 7 November 2010 on One News, a number of items reported the performance of New Zealand rowers at the World Rowing Championships at Lake Karapiro. Complaint [2] Edward Visser complained that the items hardly included any reports on the performance of “foreign competitors”. Broadcaster’s Response to the Complainant [3] TVNZ responded that the complaint was a matter of personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Referral to the Authority [4] Mr Visser asked the Authority to review TVNZ’s decision. He disagreed that his complaint was a matter of personal preference, and argued that TVNZ was “breaching the Charter”....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Benidorm – character made a comment about his wife’s vagina looking “like a pair of padded coat hangers” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Benidorm was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 28 September 2007. The programme was a British comedy set in an all-inclusive package holiday resort inhabited by a range of different characters. Among them was a couple of middle-aged swingers, Donald and Jacqueline, who were prone to scaring people with inappropriate details of their lives....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Medical drama series Bodies – scene involving woman giving birth and then having difficulty delivering placenta – woman’s genitals explicitly shown – allegedly breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Bodies is a medical drama series set in the obstetric and gynaecological ward of a fictional English hospital. The episode screened on TV One on 9 May 2006 at 9. 30pm commenced with the story of a woman giving birth. Following the birth scenes, the woman was shown lying on her back with her legs elevated in stirrups, awaiting the delivery of the placenta. When the placenta was eventually delivered, the woman suffered a uterine inversion, whereby the uterus is literally turned inside-out and appears outside the vagina....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Muslim outrage caused by cartoons first published in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed – item concluded with satirical depiction of Jesus Christ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfair in that it encouraged the denigration of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – contrast in attitudes to freedom of speech about religious convictions is controversial issue of public importance – dealt with in balanced way in full item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – lampooning of Christians did not amount to blackening of reputation – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs not subject to classification system – warning was broadcast – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – warning included before current affairs item – not upheldThis headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four Weddings – reality series broadcast at 2pm included nude wedding where all of the guests were naked – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – nudity was matter-of-fact and non-sexual – content suitable for PGR programme – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – nudity not in itself harmful to children – content not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of a reality series Four Weddings, in which four brides evaluate each other’s weddings and compete for a honeymoon prize, was broadcast at 2pm on TV One on 26 December 2011....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....

ComplaintPromo – 60 Minutes – "pissed off" – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the effects of broadcast on children – broadcaster not mindful of explicit material in promo FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV One at 6. 50pm on 10 November 2001. The promo was for an item on Dean Barker, New Zealand’s America’s Cup skipper. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about Mr Barker’s use in the promo of the phrase "pissed off". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintHolmes – item about eviction of tenants behind in payments – distressing situation – complaint that broadcaster failed to show discretion and sensitivity FindingsStandard 6 and Guidelines 6b and 6e – breach occurs when Standard contravened, not Guideline – Guideline 6f also relevant to decision on Standard 6 – tenants not dealt with fairly – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The eviction of tenants who had fallen behind in a rent-to-buy agreement was shown in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2003. The landlady explained that she had taken the action to protect her investment. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it had not shown discretion and sensitivity in a distressing situation in which there was no apparent public interest....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Masterchef NZ – three teams shown taking part in cooking competition – all teams used fresh crayfish as an ingredient – live crayfish shown accidentally being dropped onto the floor –one contestant placed three live crayfish into boiling water – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standardsClose Up – item on how to kill a crayfish correctly – interviewed the Masterchef NZ judge and contestant who boiled the crayfish – using a live crayfish the chef showed viewers how to kill it humanely – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Masterchef NZ correctly classified G – Close Up was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – neither programme required…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-007:Wright and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-007 PDF444. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...