Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Media 7 – included interview with investigative journalist and foreign correspondent – made comments that were critical of a reporter and her story which was broadcast on Australian current affairs show Dateline – allegedly in breach of standards relating to fairness and accuracy FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Media 7 is a programme with very high value in terms of freedom of expression – the ability to analyse, review and critique media is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy – the Dateline item was ambiguous in terms of its presentation of eye witnesses – the important principle of freedom of speech that public officials are open to criticism in their professional capacity applies equally to journalists, particularly as they are familiar with how media operate – criticisms overall were aimed at Ms Hakim in her professional, as opposed to personal, capacity –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – showed characters smoking cigarettes and dropping their cigarette butts on the ground – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and law and order standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 2 (law and order) – footage of characters smoking and dropping cigarette butts on the ground would not have offended most viewers and did not encourage viewers to break the law – acceptable in context and relevant to developing storyline – behaviour not portrayed as desirable – well within broadcaster’s right to employ dramatic licence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Shortland Street showed two characters smoking cigarettes before dropping their cigarette butts on the ground. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on 19 April 2013....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – language – “fuck you” – allegedly offensive – warning requiredFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – warning not necessary – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Spooks is a BBC drama series built around the activities of a fictional counter-terrorism unit attached to MI5. MI5 is the government agency responsible for internal security. In an episode beginning at 9. 30pm broadcast on TV One on 24 February 2004, one character said to another “fuck you”. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive and the programme should have been preceded with a warning. Standards [3] TVNZ assessed the complaint under Standard 1 and Guidelines 1a and 1b of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported that Plunketline telephone service to be replaced by broader Healthline service – Minister of Health questioned on whether her support for Healthline was consistent with election pledge in 1999 to support Plunketline – allegedly unbalanced and interview edited unfairly Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item omitted Minister’s explanation for the change of her political point of view – unbalanced – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item omitted Minister’s comment on central issue – unfair – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The replacement of Plunketline, a telephone service for caregivers, with a broader Healthline telephone service was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One on 7 July 2004....

An appeal against the decision was dismissed in the High Court but the order for costs was quashed: CIV 2011-485-1836 PDF110. 08 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reporter stated that supernova was “240 light years from Earth” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989OrdersSection 16(1) – $50 costs to broadcasterThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 January 2011, reported on the discovery of a supernova by a 10-year-old Canadian girl. During the item the reporter stated: The Canadian Astronomical Society says Kathryn’s supernova was in a galaxy 240 light years from Earth....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Embarrassing Bodies – episode focusing on vaginas broadcast at 8. 30pm – close-up shots of women’s vaginas and surgical operations – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme had educational value – clear pre-broadcast warning for nudity and medical scenes – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and preceded by adequate warning – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with man about unproven sexual abuse when a child in the Order of St John of God – man paid $30,000 by Order on condition of confidentiality – unbalanced – unfair to Order FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – item made clear that the man’s views had been contested by Brother and there was no court case – Church spokesperson given reasonable opportunity to challenge his account – did not do so – man’s credibility left to viewer to assess – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Patrick" was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 19 June 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on education programme established to prevent youth suicide and self harm – included footage of students – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – students, teachers and parents identifiable but no private facts disclosed in broadcast and filming was in a public place – those shown not particularly vulnerable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on Friday 26 November at 6. 25pm, reported on the establishment of an education programme in a South Auckland community aimed at preventing youth suicide and self-harm. The news reader introduced the item by stating that “Kaumatua gathered to bless a South Auckland school after a number of teen deaths in the area. One is related to a circulating text message promoting self-harm”....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-151–155:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-151–155 PDF1. 22 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-022:Cole and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-022 PDF274. 08 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Edwards at Large – interview with complainant – interviewee ambushed into taking part – unfair, partial and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – interview not unbalanced – no upholdStandard 6 – complainant adequately informed of the reason for her contribution and the role expected of her – conduct of interview not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Lynley Hood was interviewed by Brian Edwards on Edwards at Large about the content of her book “A City Possessed: the Christchurch Civic Crèche case”. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on Saturday 16 August 2003. [2] Ms Hood complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was neither balanced nor impartial and that she had been ambushed into participating in the interview....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in mainstream cosmetics, including that most contained parabens – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee was not presented as an expert – viewers would have understood that her comments were opinion and not statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Not Going Out – scene showed character dancing with baby – held baby at arm’s length and moved him from side to side – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – character did not shake baby – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no actual violence – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – classified AO and screened at 11pm outside of children’s viewing times – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – characters fictional – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not specify who he considered had been denigrated or discriminated against – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with father of escaped prisoner – used words “arsehole” and “bugger” – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A father whose son had escaped from prison was interviewed in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 22 April 2004. The father, whose home had been burgled by his son on at least three occasions, appealed to his son to give himself up. During the interview, the father used the word “arsehole” and also used the word “bugger” at least three times. Complaint [2] Gary Welch and Don Campbell each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word “arsehole” was unacceptable and in breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-007:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-007 PDF322. 28 KB...

ComplaintLove Thy Neighbour – examined dispute between neighbours – complainant declined invitation to participate – address disclosed – owner and house shown – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – principles (i) and (v) relevant – (vi) applies – public interest defence applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Love Thy Neighbour examines neighbour disputes. A boundary dispute between neighbours in Whangarei was one of the items dealt with in the repeat episode broadcast at 11. 15am on TV One on 7 September 2002. [2] B Jobe complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure of the information which identified them and their house breached their privacy. [3] In response, TVNZ advised the Authority that the item had reported the circumstances of a neighbourhood dispute, and had not disclosed any private information....