Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host said that obese children “should be taken away from their parents and put in a car compactor” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the beginning of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 3 February 2009, the programme’s presenters outlined the upcoming items for the day. One host stated, “should obese children be taken away from their parents? That is what Australian experts are suggesting – well, some of them anyway. We’ll wade into the debate after 7”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Question of Justice – documentary examining the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members – included police video, photographs of the crime scene, and re-enactments of the murders – allegedly unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme explored all different perspectives – not unfair to David Bain – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – murder scenes not gratuitous – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A Question of Justice, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 12 May 2005, examined the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members. The programme included police video and photographs of the crime scene, plus re-enactments of the murders and other scenes....

ComplaintOne News – item disclosed details of murder victim's private life – information allegedly gained by deception – use insensitive to familyFindings Standard 6 and Guidelines 6c and 6e – conflicting accounts about provision of information – decline to determine – s11(b)This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Details of the private life of murder victim Mark Burns were broadcast in an item on One News at 6. 00pm on 7 September 2003. [2] Irene Burns, an aunt of the deceased, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the journalist who had contacted her about Mark's death had reported information in the item which she had asked not to be broadcast. [3] In response, TVNZ contended that the accounts of the events from the complainant and the reporter could not be reconciled....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Six Feet Under – promo – broadcast on two occasions at about 7. 00pm – portrayed character being kidnapped in his funeral van and later assaulted, robbed and left in dark alley – allegedly unsuitable for children in view of violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) and Guidelines 9a, 9e and 9f – PGR rated promo shown in G time – previously ruled unacceptable – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Six Feet Under was broadcast during One News, on two occasions, between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 27 and 28 September 2004. Six Feet Under is an AO classified programme which screens at 9. 40pm. [2] The promo showed a male character, David, being kidnapped in his own funeral van, and later assaulted, robbed and left in a dark alley....

ComplaintSpace – interview with two female porn actors – promoted their profession and business interests – no information about full activities of interviewees – unbalanced – abusive and objectionable language in complainant’s final comment FindingsStandard G6 – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Two visiting female porn actors were interviewed on Space, broadcast on TV2 between 10. 25pm and midnight on 9 November 2001. The questions focused mainly on how they became involved in the industry, and one of the interviewees asked viewers interested in entering the industry to contact them. [2] Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the interview was unbalanced as no one spoke about the degrading aspects of the industry....

ComplaintFair Go – item about pamphlet distributed by complainant – a legal firm – offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in dealing with ACC – failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced and complainant’s response presented inadequately – unfair as the victim’s (Sally) waiver whose story told was incomplete – inaccurate – hearing sought in view of numerous complex legal and factual issues – application declined – disclosure of field tape of interview with "Sally" and assorted correspondence sought Decision on disclosure applicationDeclined This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Background [1] A pamphlet offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in securing compensation from ACC was distributed by the complainant – a legal firm....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Claim Game – profiled story behind insurance claim involving car accident in which driver died – included re-enactment of crash and footage of car – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy and accuracy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard does not apply to deceased individuals – complainant and her family members not identified – no private facts disclosed about complainant or her family members – item focused on retrieval of car for insurance purposes and not the driver so disclosure of information would not be considered highly offensive to objective reasonable person – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – computer graphic not a material point of fact – graphic clearly speculative – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – investigator’s comments directed at car retrieval and how expensive it was – not directed at driver…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rugby World Cup Semi-Final: France v Wales – commentator used the word “Jesus” with reference to Wales being given a penalty kick – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “Jesus” used as exclamation and spontaneous reaction during a live sports programme – not used in derogatory or abusive manner – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the Rugby World Cup Semi-Final between France and Wales, broadcast on TV One at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported on Pike River Inquiry and new evidence that manager at the mine sent emails about a new job minutes after the explosion – reporter quoted a miner’s mother who had called out, “This is while my boy was dying! Jesus Christ!...

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…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-077:Wells and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-077 PDF301. 25 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-134:Sage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-134 PDF779. 51 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-034:Creighton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-034 PDF713. 18 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-065:Effron and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-065 PDF372. 4 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Good Morning the presenter interviewed two recently eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the presenters referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, as these words did not feature in the broadcast. Declined to Determine: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A presenter on Good Morning interviewed two eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand, while they cooked a dish. The programme was broadcast on TV ONE on 17 April 2014. [2] Shane Moore complained that the programme breached the discrimination and denigration standard because the presenter referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, and attacked ‘mentally disabled people’. [3] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host and others were shown not wearing lifejackets while on a fishing boat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that it was irresponsible to broadcast footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets. Although the Authority understood why certain parts of the footage shown in the programme were a cause of concern for the complainant regarding water safety, these issues were unable to be addressed under the responsible programming standard. Not Upheld: Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host visited the Far North of New Zealand and went fishing at his childhood fishing spot with family and close friends. While on the fishing boat, the men were shown not wearing lifejackets. [2] Graeme Carlaw complained that broadcasting footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets promoted irresponsible behaviour....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on complaints by two families about the allegedly unsatisfactory supply and installation of their swimming pools, purchased from The Spa and Pool Factory (SPF). During the item, the reporter also noted that the Auckland Council was investigating SPF regarding ‘potentially fraudulent documentation’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the director of SPF that the item was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of his privacy. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead viewers, going directly to Mr Radisich and to Auckland Council to seek their comments on the issues raised....