Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed former SIS agent about its operation in the 1970s involving Dr William Sutch and representatives of the Soviet Embassy – former agent said that Dr Sutch had been a spy for 30 years – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements clearly expressions of former agent’s opinion – not facts – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no unfairness to members of Dr Sutch’s family – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Kit Bennetts, a former SIS agent who had obtained High Court approval to publish a book covering aspects of his work, was interviewed on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Summary The London Connection, a documentary hosted by Gary McCormick, was re-broadcast on TV One on 31 October beginning at 11. 35pm, having been first broadcast on 16 August 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast of a sequence in which inebriated young women danced topless was a deceptive programme practice because it objectified the young women without identifying them. TVNZ refused to accept the complaint on the grounds that it had already dealt with a complaint about the programme from the same complainant and, having made a proper investigation, had found no breach of broadcasting standards. Mr Boyce referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. He argued that the sequence he complained about was not a legitimate subject for a documentary since the women were not identified....

ComplaintOne News, Tonight, Assignment – inaccurate, reports of new evidence about William Sutch trial FindingsStandard G14 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G19 – action taken insufficient – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items on One News and Tonight, broadcast on 30 March 2000 at 6. 00pm and 10. 30pm respectively, examined what was described as new evidence relating to the 1975 trial of Dr William Sutch. The reports arose in the context of an Assignment programme, also broadcast that evening, in which the historic charges against Dr Sutch were reviewed. Simon Boyce complained that claims made in the two news bulletins were not substantiated in the Assignment programme, and that a still photograph shown in the news item was a misrepresentation of events. He also complained that the Assignment programme was inaccurate because it contained unsubstantiated allegations....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-086 Dated the 10th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID CURRIE of Petone Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Build a New Life in the Country – contained coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Action Taken – broadcaster upheld the complaint, apologised and took steps to prevent future mistakes – action taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Build a New Life in the Country (rated G) was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Saturday 7 June 2008. The series followed British couples as they pursued their dream homes and lifestyles. In the 7 June episode, Jason and Phillipa had bought a chateau in France and planned to renovate it and open it as a bed and breakfast. The episode tracked their progress over nine months. [2] At approximately 7....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 28/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAEME NORTH of Warkworth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-125 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DILIP RUPA of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A news item broadcast on One Network News on 14 April 1998 between 6. 00-7. 00pm referred to some of the recommendations in the government’s review on firearms. It was reported that members of the anti-gun lobby were dissatisfied with the government’s lack of progress in implementing the recommendations. Paul Sheehan of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the report on the recommendation to buy back semi-automatic weapons was inaccurate and misleading. In addition he complained about what he called the "incorrect implication" that gun laws had not been tightened, and the failure to balance the discussion by including a person from the pro-gun lobby. TVNZ advised that it upheld the aspect of the complaint regarding the recommendation to buy back semi-automatic weapons....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintIn a segment of Balls of Steel called "Pain Men", two men devise various methods of inflicting pain on each other. In this programme, one of the men applied an electric belt sander twice to the other man's bare buttocks. The injured man then had a nail hammered through the skin between his thumb and forefinger and into a block of wood. A viewer complained that the programme set a dangerous and stupid example, and breached standards of good taste and decency, law and order, and children's interests. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Balls of Steel was a comedy/entertainment programme that contained some sequences which created comedy out of the most distasteful acts. It pointed out that the programme was rated Adults Only, screened at 9. 30pm, and carried a warning that it contained scenes "which may disturb"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 DNZ: Speed Thrills – documentary included footage of young male drivers exceeding speed limit – allegedly encouraged law breaking and glamorised speedingFindings Standard 2 (law and order) and Guidelines 2a, 2b and 2c – did not glamorise, condone or encourage speeding – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The programme DNZ: Speed Thrills was broadcast on TV One on 15 March 2004 at 8. 35pm. It included footage of two young men driving at night in excess of the speed limit. Complaint [2] Alexander Johnston complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the young men were exceeding the speed limit by “considerable margins” and that TVNZ staff must have encouraged them to do so. Otherwise, Mr Johnston wrote, it would have been pointless to have installed cameras in their cars....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – property sale – gratuitous exposure of the vendors’ relationship – allegedly insensitive and unfair FindingsStandard 6 – argument pivotal to transaction– no adverse reflection on complainant – not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode in the series Location, Location, Location was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Monday 7 July 2003. One part of the programme featured Mr and Mrs Hepworth attempting to sell their home. [2] Mrs Hepworth complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unfair to her by including an argument between her and her husband that was incidental to the programme. [3] TVNZ maintained that it could not identify any aspect of the programme where the complainant had been treated unfairly. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintSecret New Zealand – death of Norman Kirk – various theories explored – a conspiracy theory advanced linked death to trial of Dr Bill Sutch for spying – inaccurate details of trial – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – speculation advanced – not fact – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Sutch not dealt with unfairly in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Secret New Zealand presented three perspectives on the death in 1974 of former Prime Minister, Norman Kirk. The series examined events in New Zealand which were not adequately explained at the time . The episode complained about was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 2 September 2002. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate and unfair....

ComplaintHolmes – young people mimicking professional wrestling – impressionable people might copy – irresponsible itemFindingsStandard G12 – extensive warnings – no uphold Standard V6 – cautionary tale – appropriate warnings – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item discussing a social problem in the United States involving young people mimicking professional wrestling stunts they saw on television was broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 19 April 2001. John and Barbara Maltby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that impressionable young people in New Zealand might copy the graphic detail shown in the item. They considered that TVNZ had been irresponsible in screening the item. In response, TVNZ noted that the item had been preceded by a lengthy warning and followed by a statement from the presenter urging young people not to follow the example set by some American youth....

SummaryItems concerning a research finding that a lyprinol extract from green-lipped mussels had been shown to be effective in killing cancer cells were broadcast on TV One on 30 July 1999 on One Network News and Holmes, commencing at 6. 00 pm and 7. 00 pm respectively. It was reported that researchers believed that the compound could inhibit the spread of certain types of cancers, and that they were about to commence clinical trials. The Ministry of Health complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the items were inaccurate, unbalanced, lacking in objectivity, and distorted the research and its significance. The tone and "sheer volume of coverage" contributed to this lack of balance, it wrote. The programmes failed to make it clear that Lyprinol was a dietary supplement and therefore a product about which therapeutic claims could not be made....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – episode showed three dogs being taken from their owner as they were not registered and were aggressive towards other dogs – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – focus was on dogs being removed from owner because they were not registered – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....