Search Rapua

ComplaintEating Media Lunch – satirised television series Target which uses hidden cameras to watch workmen in a private house – workers behaved in crude and coarse manner which the complainants regarded as offensive FindingsStandard 1 – majority – satirical context – not upheld – minority – overstepped boundaries despite satire – upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The Target series was satirised during Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 25 November 2003. Target often uses hidden cameras to portray the sometimes offensive behaviour of workmen who believe they are alone in a private home. Eating Media Lunch is a series which sets out to satirise and parody aspects of the media. The behaviour suggested in the Target parody included telephone sex, drug use, masturbation, defecation and urination....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about the employment of disabled person – employer told of physical disability only – employee had mental health disability as well – disruption of staff – employer believed that she should have been told of mental health disability – allegedly discriminated against mentally disabledFindings Standard 6 and Guideline 6g (discrimination) – item focused on specific employee and presenter’s comment on specific employer – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The disruption caused by an employee with a mental health disability was recounted by a Nelson hairdresser in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 June 2004....

ComplaintGoing Straight – documentary about curing homosexuals through Christian programme – inaccurate – unbalanced – discrimination against homosexuals Findings(1) Standard G6 – majority – documentary focussed on perspectives of those featured – no uphold (2) Standard G13 – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Going Straight was broadcast on Prime Television on 16 June 2000 at 8. 35pm. The programme was a documentary about gay men who were attempting to change their sexual orientation through a Christian programme run at Caleb House in Kansas. The New Zealand Aids Foundation, through its research director, Tony Hughes, complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced. In its view, an exclusively religious perspective on homosexuality had been presented....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported public criticism of Taupo District Council’s apparent inaction in Turangi over the state of a swimming pool, sports ground facilities, and footpaths – interviewed chairman of the Taupo/Tongariro Community Board – allegedly in breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order, balance, fairness and accuracy FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – no disrespect for principles of law shown– not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – state of council facilities was controversial issue of public importance and reasonable opportunity given to respond to criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – criticisms advanced by named residents – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ormsby given opportunity to reply to criticisms of specific facilities – Turangi described fairly – opportunity for residents to participate in setting priorities for expenditure of rates explained – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-059:One New Zealand Foundation and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-059 PDF267. 25 KB...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Trial by Ordeal – documentary – examined three jury trials of John Barlow charged with double murder – questioned fairness in view of the length of the process – interviewed some participants and set up mock jury to hear evidence – allegedly gratuitous murder reconstructions, offensive and unnecessarily violent, and favoured defence over prosecutionFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – opposing perspectives advanced – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) and Guidelines 10b (cumulative effect) and 10f (repeated gratuitously) – reconstructions, while gruesome, were not gratuitous or repeated unnecessarily – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Trial by Ordeal was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 9. 00pm on 12 February 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Politically Incorrect Guide to Teenagers – host commented that teenagers were “mental”, “mad”, “not right in the head” – showed sketch of “Mad Uncle Jack” who had been released from psychiatric facility – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content subject to complaint intended to be humorous and educational rather than offensive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments were host’s personal opinion with regard to teenage behaviour – he was not making a comment on people with mental illness as a section of the community – comments did not contain invective necessary to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....

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....

ComplaintRacing – Live coverage of Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham – arch behind presenters bearing words Lion Brown – incidental liquor promotion – considerable liquor signage – saturation of liquor promotion FindingsStandard A1 – no saturation of liquor promotion – no uphold Standard A3 – repeated visuals of arch – incidental liquor promotion not minimised – uphold OrderCosts to Crown of $750 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Live coverage of the Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham was shown on TV One between 5. 00–6. 00pm on 25 January 2003. The coverage included comments from the presenters when, on a number of occasions, there was an arch bearing the words "Lion Brown" in the background. [2] Cliff Turner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of the arch amounted to the incidental promotion of liquor....

ComplaintHolmes – visual essay on the campaign of Winston Peters MP – suggested supporters were bewildered, bigoted and elderly – unfair FindingsStandard 6, Guideline 6g – elderly as a group not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Aspects of the campaign of the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters MP, during the recent general election were dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 30 July 2002. Mr Peters was shown campaigning while attending meetings and being questioned on radio and television. [2] Brent Morrissey complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item portrayed elderly voters as racist and intolerant of immigrants. That stereotype, he wrote, was incorrect....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-088:Matthews and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-088 PDF349. 69 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-009:Hine and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-009 PDF453. 48 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Our Land – included footage of a disagreement between two men after one had hit the other’s child for being naughty – the men and their families shown discussing the incident – both men shown re-enacting how the child was hit – allegedly in breach of the law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – violent behaviour portrayed as unacceptable and anti-social – 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. Broadcast [1] An episode of Our Land was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Sunday 3 January 2010. The programme followed three families trying to live the lives of Māori and European settlers in the 1800s....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on the death of a jockey resulting from a fall – item showed images of the fall – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindings Standard 1 – news unclassified – images relevant to news item – not graphic – not upheld Standard 7 – contextual factors – no warning required – not upheld Standard 9 – news item – unclassified – not upheld Standard 10 – tragic accident – violence standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] One News broadcast an item on 27 March 2005 at 6pm on TV One concerning the death of a young jockey resulting from his fall during a race....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....