Search Rapua

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...

An application for leave to appeal this decision was refused by the High Court: CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386 PDF59....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-001:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-001 PDF (374. 35 KB)...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-122:Glendorran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-122 PDF269. 28 KB...

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: 1951 – waterfront dispute – focused on experiences of watersiders – unbalanced FindingsStandard G6 – approach taken outlined at outset of programme – authorial documentary – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Documentary New Zealand: 1951 examined aspects of the major waterfront dispute which occurred in that year. The programme comprised mainly personal recollections of some people involved. It was broadcast at 8. 30pm on 16 July 2001 on TV One. R B Morton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme lacked balance. While it looked at the plight of the watersiders’ families, he said, it did not examine the irresponsible working practices of the watersiders and their effect on New Zealand. In response, TVNZ said that the programme had referred to the way the dispute developed....

Summary "Role Model", a music video for a song by Eminem was screened on Video Hits – New Releases, a music video programme. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 11. 00am on 30 October 1999. Ms Watkins complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the Video Hits – New Releases programme during which the "Role Model" video screened was incorrectly classified PGR, as it contained language and imagery which was potentially harmful to younger viewers. In its response to the complaint, TVNZ wrote that it believed it had properly classified the programme PGR. In its view, it would be "absurd" to restrict such music video shows to AO audiences because the age group attracted to this sort of music started "a number of years earlier than 18". TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintThe $20 Challenge – four participants challenged to live in Paris on $20 a day – one participant’s use of "bugger" and "shit" – offensive language FindingsG2 – language acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The $20 Challenge, broadcast on TV2 on 19 February 2001 at 7. 30pm, featured four young New Zealanders challenged to survive in Paris on just $20 for three days. The group was set a number of assignments, including talking part in a skate-athon, selling produce at a local market, and getting work in the kitchen of a leading restaurant. They also had to arrange their own accommodation. Harold White complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used by one of the participants in the challenge....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 TVNZ News – stated that “your odds” of being hit by a piece of satellite were 1 in 3,200 – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was inaccurate in stating that “your odds of being hit by a piece of this satellite. . . [were] 1 in 3,200” because they were the odds of anyone getting hit – misleading to then compare those odds and imply it was more likely than being in a car accident – however broadcaster could have expected to rely on reputable news agency and figures supplied by NASA – effect of inaccuracy not so serious as to outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – investigation of availability of ingredients needed to make methamphetamine or ‘P’ – hidden camera footage of two shopkeepers – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not list all of the ingredients needed to make ‘P’ – no recipes or techniques mentioned – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – high level of public interest in the items – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not relevant to complainant’s concerns – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcaster did not mislead or alarm viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Green Party was calling for an urgent safety review of non-stick cookware – claimed the US Environmental Protection Agency had found possible links between non-stick cookware, cancer and birth defects – veterinarian stated that non-stick pans could be deadly to household birds – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item contained misleading and inaccurate statements – would have unnecessarily alarmed viewers – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any person or organisation taking part in the programme – not upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $927. 50 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500....

ComplaintDawson’s Creek – teen drama – references to sex and condoms – incorrect PGR classification – unsuitable for childrenFindings(1) Standard G8 – fictional drama – teenage target audience – content not gratuitous – no uphold (2) Standard G12 – properly classified PGR and screened in PGR time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode in the Dawson’s Creek series was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 6 June 2000. Maree and Andrew Gunn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained many explicit references to sex and a "graphic, trivial discussion on the selection of condoms". They considered that this material was unsuitable for younger viewers, and that the programme ought to have been rated AO rather than PGR....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind looked at history of Michael Jackson's unconventional behaviour – behaviour analysed by psychiatrists and psychologists – comments sought from range of other people – programme used extracts from previous documentary Living with Michael Jackson – allegedly unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not controversial issue of public importance – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Authority unable to determine whether extracts of Martin Bashir documentary used in context – decline to determine – other comments by psychiatrist not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 30 May 2005, at 9. 30pm, TV2 broadcast a documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind....

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....

Complaint Coca-Cola Chart Show and Coca-Cola RTR Countdown – music videos – sexual themes offensive – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 7, Guideline 7a – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a and 9d – no disturbing material – no uphold; Guidelines 9c and 9i – irrelevant – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Music videos Kiss Kiss, Hot in Herre and Are You In? were broadcast on TV2’s Coca-Cola RTR Countdown at 6. 00pm on 20 July 2002 and on the Coca-Cola Chart Show at 10. 00am on 21 July 2002. [2] Tina Swenson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the music videos were sexually explicit, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children....

Summary A scene towards the end of the programme Water Rats broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30 pm on 23 July 1998 depicted a man seizing a policewoman and threatening her with a knife. Mr Parry complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner, especially where women were shown as victims, was unacceptable on television. Knives, he wrote, should never be shown used as weapons on television because that led to copycat crimes. TVNZ responded that the showing of knives could not be absolutely banned. What was important, it suggested, was how knives and other weapons were shown and in what context. Here, it wrote, the scene was essential to the drama. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Parry referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

SummaryAn item on the programme 5. 30 with Jude, broadcast on TV One on 7 October 1998, featured a representative from a health products company discussing soy products, phytoestrogens, and commercial products containing them, with the presenter. Mrs James complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that statements made in the item were unbalanced, and did not mention the risks of soy or phytoestrogen ingestion. The item confused soy food used as part of a varied diet with a component (phytoestrogen) extracted from it, she wrote. TVNZ responded that its research revealed many articles and symposia disclosing the beneficial effects of soy foods. Noting that soy products were freely available in New Zealand, and that there was no widespread concern about their sale, it declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mrs James referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....