Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News, which reported on the Government’s intention to remove a benefit reduction sanction that can apply to sole beneficiary parents who do not name the remaining parent. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced and misleading, as the report omitted details about the exemptions that can apply to the sanction, including that a parent will not have to name the other parent where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence. The Authority found that the focus of this item was the Government’s desire to remove the sanction. The omission of details about the exemptions was therefore not material to the overall focus of the item, and did not mislead viewers....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-098:Meroiti and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-098 PDF258. 04 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-164:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-164 PDF362. 98 KB...

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. 1993-092:Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-092 PDF394. 31 KB...

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 Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their privacy....

ComplaintAssignment Special – investigation of scampi fishing industry – allegations of corruption – complainants’ application for production of documents and affidavits FindingsApplication Order made under s. 12 OrderOrder made for broadcaster to produce certain affidavits to Authority This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION The Background [1] Claims made in Parliament and by some of the participants in the scampi fishery that the Ministry of Fisheries was corrupt and condoned corruption in the scampi industry were investigated in an Assignment Special. The programme was broadcast on TV One between 8. 30–10. 00pm on 29 October 2002. [2] Simunovich Fisheries Ltd and two of its directors, Peter Simunovich and Vaughan Wilkinson, participants in the scampi fishing industry, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards relating to balance, accuracy and fairness....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item on New Zealand’s poor record of child abuse – recited list of recent cases of abuse and murder – presenter referred to “father” as perpetrator – allegedly inaccurate and unbalanced Findings Principle 4 (balance) – balance aspect of complaint more appropriately dealt with under Principle 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact rather than particular perspective or opinion – not upheld Principle 5 (accuracy) – item later clarified that perpetrators often male figure other than natural father – overall item not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 30 June 2004, concerned New Zealand’s record of child murder and abuse....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Real Crime: The Investigator – programme analysed the conviction of a man for murdering his wife – disclosed the names and showed photographs of the man’s daughters – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – programme did not disclose any private facts – information already in the public realm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Real Crime: The Investigator was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 8 July 2009. The investigator, Bryan Bruce, took an in-depth look at the case of a man who was convicted of murdering his wife in 2001. [2] During the programme, the first names of the man’s daughters were disclosed and a photograph of the man and his two daughters was displayed by the investigator on his evidence board....

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – host introduced the episode by saying “Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother” – 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] Eating Media Lunch was a series broadcast on TV2 that lampooned aspects of the media both in New Zealand and overseas. The host introduced the episode broadcast at 10pm on Friday 2 November 2007 with the following words: Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother. [2] The episode was preceded by a verbal and visual warning which said: This programme is rated Adults Only. It contains language and sexual material that may offend some people. Complaint [3] Martin Taylor made a formal complaint about the introduction to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster....

FindingAuthority declines to accept the complaint on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction to do so. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] Between 5 and 7 November 2010 on One News, a number of items reported the performance of New Zealand rowers at the World Rowing Championships at Lake Karapiro. Complaint [2] Edward Visser complained that the items hardly included any reports on the performance of “foreign competitors”. Broadcaster’s Response to the Complainant [3] TVNZ responded that the complaint was a matter of personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Referral to the Authority [4] Mr Visser asked the Authority to review TVNZ’s decision. He disagreed that his complaint was a matter of personal preference, and argued that TVNZ was “breaching the Charter”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-160 Dated the 21st day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SIEGFRIED BAUER of Raetihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-054 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER NEWFIELD of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...