Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The election coverage programme Vote 2014 included footage of Te Ururoa Flavell speaking to Māori Party supporters in te reo Māori. One of the presenters said, '[O]bviously as he's speaking in Māori, in te reo, and the vast majority of us aren't going to understand that. . . let's go back to David Cunliffe. . . ' and the broadcast crossed to Mr Cunliffe's speech. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the comment was racist and unfair. Although the comment was disrespectful and dismissive of the fact that te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand, it did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration, and was not unfair to Mr Flavell, especially in the context of an important political event....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

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?...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-133:Associate Minister of Health (Hon Maurice Williamson) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-133 PDF1. 02 MB...

ComplaintLate Edition – Breakfast – alleged rat infestation in Helensville – no evidence of rats – community views not sought – item unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard G14 – item failed to uphold standards of accuracy, impartiality and objectivity – uphold OrderCosts of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on TV One on Late Edition on 6 June 2001, and on Breakfast on 7 June 2001, dealt with an alleged infestation of rats in and around Helensville. Hans Van Duyn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair and lacked balance. He said the only person interviewed was a former Helensville Mayor, Mr Eric Glavish, who had his own "reasons or agenda to make unsubstantiated allegations"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

ComplaintOne News – item about death of Charles Bronson – obituary included film clips – unsuitable for children at that hour – violent FindingsStandard 9 – context – no uphold Standard 10 – care and discretion exercised – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The death of actor Charles Bronson was the subject of an item broadcast on One News, beginning at 6. 00pm on 1 September 2003. During the item, brief clips from some of the films in which the actor had appeared in were shown, including a scene where one character is shot by another. [2] Viewers for Television Excellence Inc (VOTE) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unacceptable to broadcast such a violent item during the news hour, and that the item was unsuitable for children....

ComplaintOne News – item about a sexual assault trial – unnecessarily violent and graphic material – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 9 and Guideline 9a – no disturbing material – no uphold Standard 10 and Guideline 10g – no explicit details – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A One News programme, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 8 April 2002, featured coverage of the trial of six secondary school students who had been accused of a sexual assault on a male class-mate. The reporter described some of the evidence heard in Court about the assault, including that a broomstick had been inserted up the victim’s anus. [2] Viewers for Television Excellence Inc....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Election 2005 and Close Up – debates between Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and Labour and National parties’ finance spokespersons, prior to the 2005 General Election – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – complaint a matter of viewer preferences – no issue of broadcasting standards arose – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] TVNZ broadcast two political programmes on TV One prior to the 2005 general election. The first was Election 2005, a live studio debate featuring the Prime Minister Rt Hon Helen Clark and National Party leader Dr Don Brash, screened on 22 August 2005. [2] The second was Close Up, which involved a studio discussion without an audience between Labour’s finance spokesperson, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, and National’s finance spokesperson John Key, broadcast on 23 August 2005....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an interview with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Q & A was unbalanced. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply to the concerns raised, the broadcaster’s decision had adequately responded to the concerns and the complaint related to matters of editorial discretion and personal preference. The Authority considered, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. Declined to determine (section 11 (b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 116/94 Dated the 24th 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...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-089:Smith and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-089 PDF263. 7 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-021:New Zealand Mining and Exploration Association Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-021 PDF614. 69 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-101:McElroy and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-101 PDF468. 14 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....