Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenter said there was a “wind chill factor well below zero in several states” in America – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint vexatious and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 December 2010, reported that “severe winter storms are still causing havoc closing airports and delaying flights across America. Snow, ice and a wind chill factor well below zero in several states, plus violent tornadoes in others, are testing the Christmas patience of thousands of travellers....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at a couple running the One World Foundation who had been banned from Samoa because of allegations regarding the legitimacy of their work – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainants were treated fairly – chosen interview excerpts fairly represented the complainants’ position – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 March 2008, reported that “a New Zealand-based couple’s been banned from Samoa for life after being accused of taking freebies in the name of charity”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ghost Squad – scene showing a gang of teenage girls beating an off-duty police officer until he was unconscious – one of the girls was seen to urinate over the man’s head as he lay on the ground – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Ghost Squad, a British drama series about a crime unit in which police officers policed their colleagues, was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 15 August 2006. The programme featured a scene in which a gang of teenage girls beat an off-duty police officer until he was unconscious....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on a strip club package for supporters of Lions rugby tour – naked women shown playing pool – demonstration of lap dancing – bedroom with mirrors shown – allegedly offensive, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children – presenter said “stuff you bitch” at end of programme about another matter – allegedly offensiveFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – not applicable to news and current affairs – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – sufficient earlier indications of focus of item – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The package offered by a strip club for Lions rugby supporters was covered in an item on Holmes broadcast on Prime at 7. 00pm on 24 May 2005....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown – three people suffering from serious mental illness – released into community – tragic results – documentary said to be unbalanced and inaccurate, and to have denigrated the mentally ill Findings Standard 4 – item’s focus on three cases where the mental health system had failed – balanced in view of narrow focus – not upheld Standard 5 – accurate in view of item’s focus – not upheld Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no discrimination against or denigration of mentally ill in view of item’s focus – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Three cases involving people suffering from serious mental illness who were released into the community with tragic results were examined in a documentary broadcast on TV One. The programme Documentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown was screened at 8....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – promo broadcast on 3 February 2004 – used excerpt from an item about events in Northern Ireland from One News item broadcast on 15 October 2002 – promo did not refer to events since then – allegedly misleadingFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – item broadcast shortly before 6. 00pm news was promo for Spooks – used part of news item from One News broadcast on 15 October 2002 – balance not an issue – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the forthcoming drama series Spooks was broadcast on TV One shortly before the start of One News at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2004. The promo began with an excerpt from an item broadcast on One News on 15 October 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Insight: "Learning the Hard Way" – documentary about privately-run tertiary courses – segment about the film industry included references to The Film School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – complaint more appropriately assessed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – fact alleged to be inaccurate was expression of opinion to which standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item about students getting “duped” by substandard courses – only institution identified was The Film School – implied The Film School was one of these substandard courses – no evidence to suggest that it was substandard – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

ComplaintFair Go – rare breeds of sheep put in care as owner had cancer – organiser of care took two flocks herself – owner sought to recover sheep – care organiser believed she owned sheep – no contract – inaccurate – unclear – unbalanced – editing which distorted FindingsStandard G4 – inadequate opportunity to respond – uphold Standards G1, G3, G6, G7, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary David Tuart, an owner of some rare sheep species, required treatment for cancer. Dr Beverley Trowbridge, a fellow breeder of rare sheep species, arranged for his flocks to be distributed among other farmers. After Mr Tuart had been treated, Dr Trowbridge refused to return some of the sheep as she believed that she had been given ownership of them....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Tonight – teaser for upcoming item on Prince William and Kate Middleton – presenter stated, “Will they, won’t they? Is the next King of England set to tie the knot? ” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – complaint trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Tuesday 9 November 2010, contained a brief, five-second teaser for an upcoming item on Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton. The presenter stated, “Will they, won’t they? Is the next King of England set to tie the knot?...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

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 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated – children’s cartoon showed characters kissing and making romantic comments – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming), Standard 9 (children’s interests) – kissing scenes, including dialogue, were innocuous and inexplicit – content was consistent with programme’s G classification – scenes would not have offended most viewers or disturbed or alarmed children, and did not warrant a higher classification of PGR – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated, a well-known children’s cartoon about four teenagers and their talking dog who investigate mysteries involving supposedly supernatural creatures, showed the characters Daphne and Shaggy embraced in a kiss while making romantic remarks....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-102:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-102 PDF330. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-168:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-168 PDF319. 29 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of I Am Innocent focused on the story of Y, a science teacher, who was accused and charged with indecently assaulting a female student (‘X’) in 2012. The charges against Y were withdrawn around August-September 2013. The episode featured interviews with Y and others, all of whom spoke supportively about him. Ms Johnson complained that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards, including that comments made during the programme about X and her mother resulted in their unfair treatment. The Authority upheld this aspect of Ms Johnson’s complaint, finding that the programme created a negative impression of X and her mother....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on 1 News, which reported on the United States (US) government shutdown, breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the statement: ‘The crisis began after Democrats refused to sign off on the President’s demands for eight and a half billion dollars to build a border wall with Mexico’, was unlikely to mislead or misinform viewers about the latest events in the US government shutdown, reported on during the item. The Authority noted that in the context of the item as a whole, the presenter’s comment was an acceptable shorthand introduction to the key issues reported on. Finally, in this case the Authority found that the broadcaster was not required, in the interests of accuracy, to specify that the amount sought for the border wall was reported in New Zealand dollars. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...