Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-054:Young and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-054 PDF399. 53 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the documentary series, The Hard Stuff with Nigel Latta, titled ‘The New New Zealand’, focused on the topic of immigration. The episode looked at common perceptions of immigration in New Zealand and featured interviews with the Chief Executive of Immigration New Zealand, an immigration consultant, two academic consultants and the Chief Economist at Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL), as well as a number of immigrants to New Zealand from China, India and the UK. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that alternative points of view were omitted from the item. This episode of The Hard Stuff carried high public interest and had high value in terms of the exercise of freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed further charges laid against a man accused of a double shooting in South Auckland. During the item, images of the crime scene were shown, including footage of blood on a pavement. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the footage of blood breached the privacy of those involved (ie, the surviving victim and the victims’ relatives or friends), and that the footage would have disturbed young viewers. No individuals were identified during the broadcast, including the surviving victim or either of the victims’ relatives or friends. In addition, the image of blood was brief and was not graphic or explicit, and viewers could reasonably expect that a news broadcast reporting on a double shooting might contain some footage relating to the crime....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-049:Rosa and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-049 PDF371. 91 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-029:O'Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-029 PDF1. 33 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

ComplaintMotorway Patrol and promo – incident involving the complainants’ vehicle – complainants identifiable – breach of privacy – unfair – encouraged discrimination FindingsStandards 3 – privacy – no uphold Standard 6, Guideline 6b – not unfair to inadvertent participants who do not consent as events of public interest occurred in public place – no uphold, Guideline 6f – humiliation self-inflicted – no uphold, Guideline 6g – neither discrimination or denigration encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The loss of a trampoline off the roof of a vehicle as it drove across the Auckland Harbour Bridge was the incident dealt with in a promo for, and in the first segment of, Motorway Patrol broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 11 April 2002. Motorway Patrol is a reality series which records the work of police patrols on the Auckland motorways....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Real Crime: Broken Promises, Broken Brides – investigated the mistreatment of foreign brides in New Zealand – profiled a Malaysian woman who died of a methadone overdose – interviewed her husband who was convicted of her manslaughter – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme did not create a misleading impression that the complainant intended to murder his wife – reporter outlined the facts of the case and clearly stated the complainant was convicted of manslaughter – complainant’s perspective was included in the programme – programme was accurate and would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was provided with a sufficient opportunity to give his perspective in two interviews – interviews were not unfairly edited – overall complainant was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Summary The referendum proposition to decrease the number of MPs from 120 to 99 was the subject of debate on Crossfire broadcast on TV One on 7 October 1999 beginning at 9. 30pm. The matter was discussed by Act’s leader Richard Prebble MP in support of the proposal, and Labour MP Steve Maharey, who opposed it. Keith Flint complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the referendum had been initiated by a private citizen, the absence of a representative of the public to debate the matter resulted in the programme lacking balance and objectivity. In its response, TVNZ emphasised that the question being debated was whether a reduction in the number of MPs would result in better government and, in that context, it was entirely appropriate that it should be debated by one MP who supported the cut in numbers, and one who did not....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Lead item on One News – investigative report into alleged pornographer in Gisborne – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (Good taste and decency) – item was genuinely newsworthy – strong warning given – news by very nature will often deal with distasteful material – content not offensive – images discreet – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1]The lead item on One News on 1 August 2004 was a report from Television New Zealand’s investigative team concerning an alleged pornographer in Gisborne. The item alleged that the man was involved in procuring under-age girls for sex and the making of pornography, including through the use of stupefying drugs, and that he lured women into pornography by making false promises and statements....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item about the delay in election results from the Wellington local body elections – reporter described the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system as “discredited” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – focus of item not on STV system – no balance required on STV issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – in light of focus of item, word “discredited” referred to administration of STV system, not system itself – sufficient basis for reporter to use word accurately in this context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight on TV One at around 10. 35pm on 20 October 2004 reported that, twelve days after the local body election, the final vote for the Wellington City Council had been announced....

ComplaintPromo for Always Greener – bare buttocks masked by a "smiley face" – indecent – harmful to children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – masking device not offensive – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – not harmful to child viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A promo for Always Greener was broadcast on TV One at various times on 2 February 2003. A "smiley face" was used to cover the bare buttocks of a male character. [2] John Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the human form in this manner was offensive and harmful to children. [3] In response, TVNZ said the "smiley face" was attached so that the promo could be shown at any time. It declined to uphold the complaint that the masking breached broadcasting standards....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the usage of the word ‘root’ in a Seven Sharp item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority took into account the relevant contextual factors including the nature of the discussion, the nature of the programme and the audience expectations of the programme. The Authority did not consider that the use of the word threatened community norms of good taste and decency, or that any potential harm justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about offensive language on the broadcast of the Best Foods Christmas Comedy Gala. Comedy is a valuable form of expression and entertainment and the broadcast was adequately signposted with a written and verbal warning, and clearly visible audience advisories at the end of each ad-break. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 107/94 Dated the 7th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Clive Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment depicting students cycling on a footpath. The complainant stated this was contrary to the Cycling Code. While acknowledging the depiction of potentially unlawful behaviour, the Authority found, in the context of the programme, the broadcast did not promote, glamorise, or condone breaking the law. Not Upheld: Law and Order...