Search Rapua

SummaryThe word "Poms" was used on Breakfast broadcast on TV One on 23 December 1998 at 7. 00am in reference to the English cricket team which was touring Australia. Mr and Mrs Whitmore complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "pom" was without doubt racial discrimination. They asserted that no other race was belittled in the same way, and noted that the remark was often used in association with a report of a losing sporting performance. TVNZ responded that in its view the word did not carry the offensive connotations which the complainants attached to it. It was, TVNZ argued, a term used affectionately by residents of New Zealand and Australia. It noted that the issue had already been before the Authority which had concluded that the term did not breach broadcasting standards. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Summary A dispute between neighbours was put to the audience of You be the Judge for resolution in the episode broadcast on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The item included footage, filmed by the aggrieved neighbour, of two people leaving his neighbour’s home at 4. 31am. He described such visitors to his neighbour in general terms as her "zombie mates. " C, one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that he and his wife considered that the broadcast had invaded their privacy. First, he argued, the complainant should never have filmed them, and secondly, the footage should never have been broadcast. He said they also objected to being described as "zombie mates"....

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item showed footage of female strippers dancing in a strip club – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – broadcaster was sufficiently mindful of the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 21 August 2007, reported on the controversy in Australia following an admission by an Australian politician that he had visited a strip club while in New York. The reporter then questioned several New Zealand MPs about whether they had ever been to a strip club....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – episode contained violent scenes – allegedly in breach of programme classification and violence standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – programme contained disturbing adult themes and violence – unsuitable for children even when supervised by an adult – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence went beyond PGR classification – inadequate warning – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The first episode of Shortland Street for 2009 was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on Monday 19 January. It began with a brief recap of the final episode from 2008, in which one of the characters, Ethan Pearce, was shot in his home. Ethan was shown covered in blood struggling to move out through his yard and onto a beach, where he died....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two “coming up” promos and opening segment of One News reported that an actor had been “gunned down” by police – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term "gunned down" not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – police representative was given opportunity to explain why the shooting occurred – police treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A “coming up” promo for One News was broadcast at 5. 41pm on Thursday 27 July 2009. The promo included a brief report which stated: Coming up on tonight’s One News, an actor is gunned down by police in a suburban Auckland street. [2] A second promo for the news was broadcast at 5....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on proposed brothel aimed at women – contained interview with owner – promo shown during One News – both item and promo allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo and item covered legitimate story – neither broadcast contained visuals of brothels or sex workers – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – focus of promo and item was Ms Corkery – neither contained a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] A promo for Close Up was broadcast during an episode of One News on TV One at 6. 25pm on Monday 16 August 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Interlocutory applications for production of field tapes – documentary entitled Monster of Berhampore about alleged child abuse in Berhampore Children’s Home – complainant alleging programme unbalanced – seeking disclosure of additional material not broadcast by TVNZDecision on interlocutory applicationField tapes not required to determine relevant issues – applications declined – Authority will seek submissions on substantive issuesThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background[1] At 7:30 pm on 1 May 2005, during Sunday, Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast an item entitled The Monster of Berhampore. The subject of the item was Walter Lake, who during the 1950s and 1960s had run the Berhampore Children’s Home in Wellington. [2] The documentary interviewed a number of former residents of the home who alleged that Mr Lake had sexually abused them....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with father of escaped prisoner – used words “arsehole” and “bugger” – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A father whose son had escaped from prison was interviewed in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 22 April 2004. The father, whose home had been burgled by his son on at least three occasions, appealed to his son to give himself up. During the interview, the father used the word “arsehole” and also used the word “bugger” at least three times. Complaint [2] Gary Welch and Don Campbell each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word “arsehole” was unacceptable and in breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency....

SummaryA Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about how people use public toilets – discussed how the news presenter's mother used to help him go to the toilet when he was a child – talked about suction toilets on trains in America – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's comments were light-hearted and intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 20 April 2009, the hosts referred to a germ expert who had been interviewed earlier in the programme. This led one of the hosts to talk about the different methods people use to avoid germs in public toilets....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Without a Trace – promo showed a woman interrogating a beaten man, who was sitting on a chair, his hands tied and bleeding – woman aimed a nail gun at the man’s groin and stated “…I will nail more than your hand to the chair” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo correctly classified as PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority agreed that the broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was brief – did not contain explicit violence – majority considered broadcaster exercised…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coke Countdown – music video – “Toxic” by Britney Spears – allegedly bad taste and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Guidelines 9a and 9d – PGR viewing time – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The music video “Toxic” by Britney Spears was broadcast on Coke Countdown on TV2 at 9. 00am on 22 February 2004. Complaint [2] Rick and Suzanne Stancombe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the music video was in “poor taste” and that “children should not be subjected to this sort of indecency”....

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – “channel-surfing” segment – brief shot of “viewer’s” hands masturbating a penis-shaped dildo in front of the television – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – penis was obviously not real – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10pm on TV2 on 16 November 2007, contained a segment in which a “viewer” channel-surfed through a number of television programmes, some fabricated. The segment was constructed from the viewer’s point of view, so that the audience could see only the viewer’s hands. On three occasions, the viewer changed the channel to TV3, which was screening the breakfast show Sunrise. Each time, the viewer’s hands were shown doing something in the foreground....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News promo – covered the conflict between Russia and Georgia – contained footage of an injured woman sitting in rubble with fire and destroyed buildings around her – allegedly in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – footage of distressed and injured woman likely to be upsetting to children watching the Olympics – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for One News, broadcast during coverage of the Olympic Games at approximately 5pm on Sunday 10 August 2008, contained the headlines of three stories....