Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-093:Pryor and Corrigan and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-093 PDF588. 82 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-059:One New Zealand Foundation and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-059 PDF267. 25 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-112:Lawyers Against Torture and Oppression Anywhere Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-112 PDF485. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-058:Mental Health Foundation and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-058 PDF307. 63 KB...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item on the Government’s rejection of an application to officially change the town of Russell to its original name, Kororāreka. The complainants alleged an interviewee’s comment that those against the name change were ‘usually older… always white’ was racist and ageist; the accuracy of the same statement was ‘questionable’; and the item was unbalanced, biased and unfair by only including interviews with people who supported the name change....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-058 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANN GILLANDERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 44/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M and B HETHERINGTON of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-117 Decision No: 1997-118 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MAVIS FLOWERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

ComplaintAssignment – election special – inaccurate statement regarding student loans FindingsStandard 5 – requirement for accuracy is absolute – minor breach – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Assignment programme broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 10 July 2002 was an election special, which analysed the Auckland electorates in the context of the upcoming General Election. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the Prime Minister’s comments regarding student loans were inaccurate, and that Ms Harré was treated unfairly on the programme. [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said that the Prime Minister’s comments were "essentially correct" and that Ms Harré was dealt with fairly in the context of the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – segments concerning police shooting of innocent bystander – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – views of the police were put forward by interviewees and viewer feedback – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 6. 50am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Monday 26 January 2009, one of the hosts interviewed the New Zealand Police Association President, Greg O’Connor, following a fatal shooting by the Armed Offenders Squad of an innocent man the previous Friday. The host asked Mr O’Connor whether it was reasonable at this time to question the actions of the police officers involved. Mr O’Connor responded: . . . it’s an absolute tragedy and we have got nothing but sympathy for that family. . . ....

Summary A trailer broadcast during the news hour on One Network News on 20 May 1998 between 6. 00-7. 00pm advised that New Zealand’s Rugby Sevens team was at "Israel’s Wailing Wall". The item itself included a caption which identified the Wailing Wall as being in Jerusalem, and the script identified it as part of Israel. The Wellington Palestine Group, through a representative, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster that both the trailer and the item perpetuated an untruth, as the Wailing Wall was not part of Israel. The group said it objected to seeing TVNZ being used as a vehicle for Israeli propaganda. TVNZ responded that both the trailer and the item were in error in describing the Wailing Wall as being in Israel. On these points the complaint was upheld....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters had several light-hearted discussions about the Pope – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – presenters did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenters’ comments distinguishable from points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not denigrate the Pope or Catholics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7am on Tuesday 26 February 2008, the presenters, Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell, and the newsreader, Peter Williams, had a jovial discussion about the current Pope and what he had been doing recently....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – presenter commented that “the white settlers were intent on fucking over the natives” in New Zealand – pretended to urinate on a public sculpture – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and balance standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – no realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history....

SummaryAn item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 1 October 1998 between 7. 00-7. 30 pm, examined the Hikoi of Hope. It featured a representative from the Anglican Church and a critic of the hikoi, each being interviewed by the presenter. Ms Larkin complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the presenter’s introduction to the item was insulting, and contained derogatory descriptions, such as "the Hiccup of Hypocrisy". The presenter’s statements made it clear, she said, that the item would not be presented in a fair and neutral manner. TVNZ responded that while the Hikoi of Hope was a serious attempt to draw attention to the reality of poverty in New Zealand, the Anglican Church’s sponsorship of it had been controversial....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes promo broadcast during One News – interview with crime novelist – said “I’m going to tell you about how to commit the perfect murder” – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – promo consistent with law and order – no glamorisation of crime – crime novelist promoting her work – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the Holmes show aired on TV One at 6. 20pm on 27 October 2004. The presenter announced that he would be interviewing Tara Moss, a former model and “Australia’s number one crime writer”. The author was then shown to say: Join me tonight…on the Holmes show, and I’m going to tell you about how to commit the perfect murder....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reference to the “Labour Government” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme informationFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld Standard 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast an item on Close Up on 21 July 2005 at 7pm. During the course of a political interview, the presenter used the term “Labour Government” to refer to the Government. Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the term “Labour Government” was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme information. She noted that the government was made up of a Labour-Progressive Coalition....

The Authority received a complaint about a promo for a scheduled programme Seven Sharp which was viewed on TVNZ’s Facebook page. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under s11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority acknowledged that it raised complex issues of jurisdiction arising from the online environment, which had not yet been determined by the Authority. Taking into account its assessment of the substance of the complaint, which it considered was unlikely to result in a finding of a breach of standards, the Authority declined to determine the complaint. Declined to determine: Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...