Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-078:Miller and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-078 PDF659. 74 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on Maritime New Zealand’s lifejacket awareness campaign and featured footage of a female boatie, QA, at the Takapuna Beach boat ramp. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that showing her in the item breached her privacy, and that her comment to the reporter was taken out of context which was inaccurate and unfair. Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on Maritime New Zealand’s lifejacket awareness campaign, in light of six drownings in the first week of summer. Introducing the item, the presenter stated, ‘[Our reporter] found Auckland boaties were complacent about the dangers’. In a pre-recorded item, the reporter said, ‘We’ve been at Takapuna boat ramp for just 15 minutes, and out of three boats, six of eight people on board weren’t wearing lifejackets’....

ComplaintEyes Wide Shut – film – screened at 9. 30pm during school holidays – sexual content – unsuitable for children Findings Standard 1 and Guideline 1a – not relevant Standard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9b & 9c – 9. 30pm not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Eyes Wide Shut was a film broadcast during the school holidays, on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Tuesday 21 January 2003. The film was preceded by a warning which cited "strong sexual content", "nudity" and "drug use", and it was classified AO. [2] Cherry Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that by not providing sufficient information about the film prior to its broadcast, TVNZ failed to consider the interests of children....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-033 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: 50/95 Dated the 15th day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIFF TURNER of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 156 /95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 95/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN E WEBB of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four promos broadcast prior to 8. 30pm – three for programme Bad Girls – one for quiz show How Normal Are You? – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – Bad Girls – material suitable to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You? – material suitable to be rated G – not upheld by majority Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Bad Girls – material appropriate to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You?...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-170 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUGLAS JENKIN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Mr Mark Middleton, stepfather of a murdered 13 year-old girl, publicly threatened to kill the murderer should he be granted release from prison on parole. Because of this threat, the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Agency (CYPFA) removed a foster child whom he had been looking after for three years. In an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 27 August 1999, Mr Middleton was interviewed about CYPFA’s actions. CYPFA's position was advanced in the interview by Hon Roger McClay, Commissioner for Children. Mr Bracey complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item breached broadcasting standards as it failed to respect the principles of law, and was unbalanced....

Summary An Our World programme about wetas, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30 – 7. 30pm on 21 June 1998, included a reference to the "Auckland Museum" in the credits. On behalf of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Public Petition Campaign Group, Mr Corrin complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that it was factually incorrect to describe the Auckland War Memorial Museum as the "Auckland Museum". On the basis that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had accepted in an earlier decision that a brief reference to the "Auckland Museum" did not contravene the standards, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with decision, Mr Corrin referred the Group’s complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

ComplaintOne News – seabed and foreshore – Waitara hui – closing headline stated hui “disintegrated into conflict and name-calling” – allegedly inaccurate and misleading Findings Standard 5 – closing headline substantially misreported events – inaccurate and misleading – upheld Standard 6 – inaccuracy a question of scripting, not editing – Guideline 6a not applicable – closing headline unfair to organisers and participants – upheld OrderBroadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A closing headline on One News broadcast on TV One on 23 September 2003 reported that the hui held that day in Waitara on the seabed and foreshore issue had “ disintegrated into conflict and name-calling. ” [2] David Gall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the closing headline was inaccurate and misleading, and not supported by what was reported in the main body of the news item....

ComplaintFair Go – item about identity theft – reporter obtained driver’s licence in someone else’s name – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 referred only – no encouragement to break the law – fraud and crime elements emphasised – high public interest and educative value – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the issue of identity theft. It featured a Fair Go reporter investigating the issue by obtaining a driver’s licence in someone else’s name. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 April 2003. [2] The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had failed to refer to the "criminal" actions of the reporter in obtaining the driver’s licence....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby – comedy series about a politically incorrect relief teacher – teacher threatened to sodomise a pupil – 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] In an episode of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, a comedy series about a politically incorrect teacher in a New Zealand school, the main character threatened to sodomise a pupil if he refused to name which of his classmates had drawn a crude cartoon on the blackboard. The episode screened on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 May 2005. Complaint [2] Dame Laurie Salas complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was not something a viewer would expect in “supposedly responsible” television....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about homeopathy sceptics – included comment from sceptics, a homeopathy client, a practitioner and New Zealand Council of Homeopaths – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – three interviewees offered views in favour of homeopathy – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view – 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 Wednesday 10 February 2010, featured an experiment conducted by the New Zealand Sceptics Society in which they tried to overdose on homeopathic remedies. They reached the conclusion that the remedies were essentially water containing extremely diluted substances....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported sentencing of man convicted for stabbing a teenage tagger – reporter asked victim’s family for comment regarding defence lawyer telling them to “get over it” – footage showed lawyer saying it was “time for people to move forward, to move on” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – reporter’s question was a reasonable summation of the lawyer’s comments when juxtaposed with footage of lawyer’s comments – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...