Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TV2 promo – on screen graphics for TV2 promo included a hazy substance wafting up the screen – allegedly represented smoke and thus breached the Smoke Free Environment Act prohibition on promoting smoking behaviourFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – promo did not promote disrespect for the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The imagery used in on-screen graphics to identify a television channel as TV2 included a hazy substance wafting up the screen. It was broadcast frequently at various times. Complaint[2] Brandon Orlandini complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the haze shown in the TV2 promo represented smoke. That view, he said, was shared by others and many, like him, felt a "strong urge to smoke" on seeing the promo....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on 2 July 2025 reporting ‘a ceasefire in occupied Gaza could be on the cards with all eyes tonight on Hamas and whether it’ll accept the latest proposal. It follows Donald Trump announcing on social media that, quote, “Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise a 60-day ceasefire”. ’ Key points of the complaint included: 1News persistently reports Israel’s actions ‘in the passive voice’, avoiding attributing responsibility to Israel (including for breaking an earlier ceasefire); stating the October 2023 attacks killed ‘around 1200 people’ was incorrect as it did not account for deaths inflicted under the Hannibal Directive; and TVNZ’s sources did not support the statement that Hamas had a ‘red line’ that it ‘must remain in control of Gaza’....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an interview on Breakfast. In a discussion concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s State of the Nation speech, the host stated to ACT Party Deputy Leader Brooke van Velden ‘You mentioned that, division was from the previous Government. I mean, come on, you look at the Treaty of Waitangi. You must be able to read the room in terms of how the nation is feeling towards that Bill by your party. ’ The complainant considered the host’s implication that this division was caused by ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that the question was comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under various standards about an answer during the DUKE Quiz which, in identifying an astronaut who ‘did not set foot on the moon’, stated ‘but then, did anyone really land on the moon? ’. The Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-076 Decision No: 1998-077 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALICE HALLIWELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWARD MALCOLM and OTHERS of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 97/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 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 J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-074 Dated the 18th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA (Group Against Liquor Advertising) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 34/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOANNE DACZO of Pirongia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Seven Sharp showed a Pit Bull owner describing the dogs as the 'most sookiest, goofiest, loyal, loving teddy bears'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that it was misleading to promote Pit Bulls as 'good family dogs'. The comments were clearly distinguishable as opinion, so the accuracy standard did not apply. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] A promo for Seven Sharp included a story on Pit Bull adoption. A Pit Bull owner was shown describing the dogs as the 'most sookiest, goofiest, loyal, loving teddy bears'. [2] Louise Chaney complained that it was misleading to promote Pit Bulls as 'good family dogs' as they can be dangerous and have been known to attack children. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the accuracy standard, as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out during an anti-terror raid in Brussels. During the item, the Europe Correspondent stated, ‘We’ve now heard that one suspect has been neutralised’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the term ‘neutralised’ was not accurate, appropriate or neutral language. The Authority found the choice of language was not a material point of fact in the item, which focused on an anti-terror raid linked to the Paris terror attacks. Further, the term ‘neutralised’ is at times used in the context of reporting on police or counter-terrorism action. The use of this term was not biased against, and did not imply fault on the part of, the Belgian Police. Not upheld: Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A news item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out that occurred during an anti terror raid in Brussels....

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a 1News segment on the dangers of crossing sand bars. In the segment, a Coastguard representative said, ‘We recommend crossing the bar at high or low tide, so we can try and take the current out of the equation’. The complaint alleged the recommendation to cross at low tide was ‘wrong’ and ‘dangerous’ and Coastguard were not an authoritative source regarding maritime matters. The Authority considered there were reasonable arguments for a finding the statement was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The segment’s overall emphasis was on the dangers and complexity in crossing sand bars, and the statement addressed just one of several risk factors mentioned. In any event, the Authority found it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on information provided by the Coastguard representative on this topic. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Criminal Minds featured the murder of three restaurant workers during an armed robbery, prompting the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit to re-open a similar cold case that occurred six years earlier. The episode contained violence and drug use. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached broadcasting standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and law and order. The Authority found that while the episode contained challenging content, it was classified AO and was preceded by an adequate warning. The programme’s classification, pre-broadcast warning and established reputation as a crime drama enabled viewers to make an informed viewing decision. The programme did not contain visual acts of violence, and the drug use was not portrayed in an instructional or encouraging manner and was part of the episode’s narrative context....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on rising gang membership, which featured archival footage of gang members. The complainant said the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, balance and accuracy standards on the basis the footage promoted gang activity/membership and misrepresented the current situation where gang patches and insignia are banned in public. In the context of the item, the Authority did not consider the likely impact of the visual content was to encourage illegal or antisocial behaviour. It also found the content was unlikely to mislead reasonable viewers regarding current gang activity. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints about episodes of Shortland Street, which followed the ongoing storyline of a threesome between a married couple and their nanny. The Authority acknowledged that some viewers might find this storyline distasteful and that some scenes and references might have raised questions for children. However, the Authority found that various contextual factors, including audience expectations of the long-running television drama and a warning for sexual material, prepared audiences for the likely content and minimised the potential for undue harm. The sexual material and references contained in these episodes were relatively inexplicit, with no nudity or sexual activity beyond kissing shown. Finally, the fictional sexual activity took place between consenting adults and no illegal or seriously antisocial activity was portrayed during the programme....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a promo for Love Island USA, broadcast during an episode of America’s Got Talent, breached the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards. While Love Island USA is rated 16-LC, the Authority found the promo’s content was consistent with the G classification for America’s Got Talent. Any content that may have been viewed by some audience members as potentially suggestive or sexual was brief and inexplicit, and child viewers were unlikely to be unduly alarmed or distressed by the promo. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...