Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News Tonight – item reported on an Auckland homicide – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 26 September 2008, reported that a man had been stabbed and killed in Auckland. In the first part of the item, a reporter stated that, "[The victim’s] family arrive at the murder scene today, facing the tragic loss of a loved one", accompanied by a shot of three men peering into an area covered by a tarpaulin. The reporter also quoted a sympathy card left at the crime scene, saying, "What a tragic waste of a fine life. ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – skit called “Dr Rangi” – doctor examined female patient’s breasts – became visibly sexually aroused as the female patient responded coyly – 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] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history. An episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 10pm on 12 March 2007 contained a skit called “Dr Rangi”, which was a send-up of 1970’s sitcoms, involving a Maori doctor. [2] The skit involved Dr Rangi examining a female patient’s breasts and becoming visibly sexually aroused as the female patient responded coyly....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of bare breasts and buttocks, and brief frontal shots of two naked women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of naked women not sexualised or intended to titillate – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – programme was appropriately classified PGR – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 August 2007, contained video footage of a number of women featuring bare breasts, buttocks and two brief full frontal shots of naked women....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Frontseat – contained brief scene from A Clockwork Orange where a man is beaten – programme was classified G and broadcast on a Saturday morning at 7. 55am – allegedly in breach of programme classification and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – scene complained about contained material which was unsuitable for children – broadcaster should have classified as a PGR programme – upheld (majority) Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not exclude material likely to be unsuitable for children – inappropriately classified and broadcast during a G time-band – broadcaster failed to consider the interests of child viewers – upheld (majority)No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Frontseat, a New Zealand-made arts programme, was broadcast at 7. 55am on TV One on Saturday 18 March 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News, Marae and Te Karere – One News newsreader referred to Prince William as the popular choice for the next “King of England” – Marae discussion on constitutional change – presenter and guests referred to “Queen of England” – Te Karere item referred to Princes Charles as the “monarch of England” – all items allegedly inaccurate, and in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 – no basis for complaint – not upheld Standard 5 – not inaccurate – use of phrase “Queen/King of England” acceptable description – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast items on Marae on 14 November 2004, One News on 11 February 2005 and Te Karere on 8 March 2005, all of which referred in some way to the British Royal Family....

ComplaintHolmes – lifting of moratorium on commercial release of genetically modified organisms – studio debate – “Trust and Country Image” report discussed – complainant maintained he accurately quoted report – presenter allegedly misrepresented report – presenter allegedly unfairly criticised complainant Findings Standard 5 – presenter’s introductory statement on report inaccurate – upheld Standard 5 – presenter’s criticism a question of fairness, not accuracy – issue considered under Standard 6 Standard 6 – presenter’s vehement interjection amounted to accusation of deliberate misrepresentation – content, manner and tone of interjection an unfair overreaction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 23 October 2003 dealt with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 88/95 Decision No: 89 /95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALVA LANGFORD of Gisborne and ELISABETH GRUIJTERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 108/94 Dated the 7th day of November 1994 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 I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint60 Minutes – Police shooting of Steven Wallace – unbalanced – erroneous FindingsStandard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold Standard G6 – broadcast balanced – balance also achieved in period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 60 Minutes looked at events in Waitara in the minutes before the Police shooting of Steven Wallace. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 6 May 2001. Ian White complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast was "totally unbalanced and erroneous". TVNZ did not consider that the programme had been inaccurate. It also maintained that the programme had been balanced. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr White referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item interviewed aid worker Nicola Enchmarch about being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza in which nine activists died – footage of a man throwing a rock and of another man bleeding shown during discussion of Ms Enchmarch’s previous attempt to get aid to Gaza by land – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – footage subject to complaint did not constitute a material point of fact to which the standard applied and was not misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

ComplaintOur People Our Century: "In the Family Way" – inaccurate, sexist statements – women portrayed as victims, men as violent abusers FindingsG1 – not inaccurate – no uphold G4 – not unfair – no uphold G6 – not relevant – balance not required in social history – no uphold G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The first episode of the documentary series Our People Our Century was broadcast on TV One on 7 February 2000 at 8. 30pm. It was entitled "In the Family Way" and looked at family life in New Zealand through the experiences of three different families. Bruce Tichbon complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme made a number of inaccurate sexist statements in relation to men, and unfairly and inaccurately portrayed women as victims and men as violent abusers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-005:Coffey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-005 PDF573. 48 KB...

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-055:Roberts and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-055 PDF237. 35 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-127:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-127 PDF215. 44 KB...