Search Rapua

ComplaintOne News – 4, 5, 10 August – NZRFU receptionist advised caller of the availability of scalped tickets – receptionist described as a "go-between" and later as "at the centre" of the scam – covert recording of telephone conversation – inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfair to use covert call given public interest – no uphold; unfair not to broadcast full summary of covert call – uphold Standards G7, G13, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Following up on information received, a TVNZ journalist, without identifying himself, telephoned the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRFU) to ask about the availability of a ticket for a forthcoming test match. The call was recorded covertly....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Probation Services Manager – conduct of the interviewer – biased – unfair Findings Standards 4 and 6 – live interview – not unbalanced – interviewee presented viewpoint – dealt with fairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with the Manager of the Probation Service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 13 February 2003. The interview centred around the release of a report by the Probation Service regarding its management of an offender while on parole. [2] John Blackaby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that the interviewee had been dealt with unfairly, because of the "bully-boy" conduct of the presenter....

ComplaintHolmes – item about Death with Dignity Bill – man featured with motor neuron disease – wanted choice about his time of death – unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – human interest story – referred to issue of euthanasia – euthanasia canvassed in other programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Shortly before the Death with Dignity Bill was to have its first reading in Parliament, an item on Holmes featured a person dying from motor neuron disease who hoped the Bill would be passed. If the Bill was passed, the person said that he would have the right to choose the time of his death. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 July 2003. [2] D A Armstrong and P Schaab both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby – comedy series about a politically incorrect relief teacher – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Episode three of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, a comedy series about a politically incorrect teacher in a New Zealand school, was screened on TV One on 20 May 2005 at 9. 35pm. [2] The programme’s storyline involved the discovery of a used condom in the reading recovery area of the school, and the subsequent revelation that a young female teacher had been sexually involved with a male student....

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – two items about allegations of sexual abuse against former church worker – described in second item as “sexual monster” – named and photographs shown – alleged breach of privacy – second item included recent footage of church worker allegedly taken without permissionFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (i), and (iv) – disclosure was a breach of privacy principle (i) but justified in the public interest – not upheld Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (iii) – footage of man taken from public place – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Allegations of sexual abuse by the former supervisor at an orphanage run by the Presbyterian Church in the 1970s were made in items on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-113 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LANCASTER SALES AND SERVICE LIMITED of Christchurch 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 1989One News – headline summary on the respective National Party and Labour Party plans to provide financial assistance to New Zealanders who lost their jobs as a result of the economic crisis – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement that Labour’s policy applied to anybody who lost their job was inaccurate – headline summary would have misled viewers – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of accuracy No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a round-up of the day’s top stories on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

ComplaintFair Go – auction of house – sale fell through – house resold to unsuccessful bidder – unreasonable to charge two commissions – unfair – unbalanced Findings(1) Standard G4 – promo – unfair – uphold (2) Standard G4 – items explained issues fairly – no uphold – Standards G6, G7 G11(i) – subsumed No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Fair Go, a consumer advocate programme, is broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 30pm. In the episodes broadcast on 12 and 19 July 2000, it reported that the vendor of a house believed that he had been unfairly charged a second commission by real estate agents after a first sale had fallen through and a subsequent sale had been made. His belief was alluded to in a promo for Fair Go which was broadcast on a number of occasions....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ugly Betty promo – classified G – contained sexual themes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – content of promo required a higher classification of PGR – promo should not have screened during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – content of promo was more suitable for a mature audience – should not have been broadcast during a G programme children were likely to be watching – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the comedy programme Ugly Betty was broadcast on TV2 at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-107 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An item about the squalid living conditions of a Wanganui woman and her cats was broadcast on One Network News on TV One on 25 August 1999, between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm. It included footage showing the interior of the house she lived in, which was filmed during a period when the woman was in hospital. Rev and Mrs Williams complained direct to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the broadcast had breached the woman’s privacy. They considered that, in filming the interior of her house, the woman’s privacy had been grossly and blatantly violated by the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd. TVNZ recommended that the Authority should decline to uphold the complaint. It contended that there was a strong public interest in a story about a person living in New Zealand in such appalling conditions....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-034 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 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 R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-069 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Criminal Minds featured the murder of three restaurant workers during an armed robbery, prompting the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit to re-open a similar cold case that occurred six years earlier. The episode contained violence and drug use. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached broadcasting standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and law and order. The Authority found that while the episode contained challenging content, it was classified AO and was preceded by an adequate warning. The programme’s classification, pre-broadcast warning and established reputation as a crime drama enabled viewers to make an informed viewing decision. The programme did not contain visual acts of violence, and the drug use was not portrayed in an instructional or encouraging manner and was part of the episode’s narrative context....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a 1 News segment breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The Authority found that people who hold the views represented in the segment do not amount to a ‘recognised section of the community’ for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also found that, while the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, it was balanced by the inclusion of multiple points of view from several parties. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...