Search Rapua

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”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – item featured a skit in which an actor pretending to be a TV presenter interviewed “Ray”, the stingray that killed prominent Australian Steve Irwin – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – skit clearly satirical – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme Facelift, broadcast on TV One at 10. 10pm on 10 September 2007, featured a skit of the Campbell Live show in which an actor pretending to be a TV presenter interviewed “Ray”, the stingray that killed prominent Australian Steve Irwin. During the skit, the actor playing the stingray discussed how he had not meant to kill Mr Irwin, and coughed up a piece of khaki clothing (Mr Irwin’s regular attire)....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance and was misleading by failing to accurately present the perspective of the New Plymouth public who were opposed to Mr Judd’s proposed reforms. While it was framed primarily as a profile piece on Mr Judd, the item’s discussion of the proposed Māori ward triggered the requirement for balance....

Chair Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Following the issue of this decision, the Authority received new information from a third party refuting certain allegations made by the complainant about, and descriptions of, the dairy farm referred to in the decision owned by 'B'. The Authority wishes to note that the descriptions of the farm owned by B used in this decision have been disputed. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Sunday, titled ‘The Price of Milk’, followed a reporter as he visited two dairy farms in the Hauraki Plains. The reporter spent time with two farmers, A and B, to hear their perspectives on their work and the issues facing the industry....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the 1 News Vote 17 Leaders Debate, moderator Mike Hosking questioned Bill English about a damaged fuel pipeline in Auckland that caused disruption to flight services, using the phrase ‘for God’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Hosking’s use of this phrase was blasphemous and offensive. The Authority has consistently found that variations of ‘God’, ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations and in this case, Mr Hosking used the phrase to express his own, and voters’, frustration at the Government’s management of the fuel crisis. In these circumstances, the Authority found that the alleged harm did not outweigh the important right to freedom of expression, particularly in the lead up to a general election....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News, which reported on the Government’s intention to remove a benefit reduction sanction that can apply to sole beneficiary parents who do not name the remaining parent. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced and misleading, as the report omitted details about the exemptions that can apply to the sanction, including that a parent will not have to name the other parent where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence. The Authority found that the focus of this item was the Government’s desire to remove the sanction. The omission of details about the exemptions was therefore not material to the overall focus of the item, and did not mislead viewers....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint an item on 1 News was unbalanced for raising the possibility that Labour could lose the 2023 election. The balance standard did not apply to the concerns raised, and the broadcaster adequately responded to the concerns in the original complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported on incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine. The newsreader said, ‘Road blocks are in place and thousands of police and soldiers are patrolling across Israel as it tries to stop a wave of violence’, and then crossed to a correspondent reporting from East Jerusalem. The item also went on to report on other incidents of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, including in Gaza. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item was inaccurate because East Jerusalem is internationally recognised as being part of Palestine, not Israel, and viewers would have been misled into thinking that much of the violence took place in Israel. Upheld: AccuracyNo OrderIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News reported on incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-041:Children's Media Watch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-041 PDF788. 47 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary Some dissatisfaction expressed by three purchasers of cars from Saevue Motors in New Plymouth was considered in an item broadcast on Holmes, between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 11 December 1997. The possibility of odometer tampering was raised. Mr Rawlings complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. He noted that there had been no effort to gauge the extent of the problem among the company's total customer base, and he claimed that the company was portrayed as a "monster". On the basis that the information contained in the item justified the investigation, TVNZ reported that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to participate in the programme. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

SummaryA trailer for the AO-classified programme Water Rats was shown during the PGR-classified programme Party of Five at about 8. 03 pm on TV2 on 17 November 1998. Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the trailer showed a couple in bed, clearly naked and kissing. There was a clear inference that they were having sex, she contended. Given the time of broadcast, the behaviour shown was distressing, she wrote, and was best kept to private bedrooms. The trailer also did not show acceptable behaviour for the time band within which it was screened, Mrs Barker said. TVNZ responded that the scene in the trailer was very brief, contained no frontal nudity and only implied sexual activity. It had screened during a programme which contained references to sexual activity, and in context it was not unsuitable viewing for children under the guidance of an adult....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling against advertisement for Charlie’s Soda – studio discussion among four men about whether the decision was out of step with society and demonstrated a double standard between advertising and television programmes – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – discussion was confined to one advertisement – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – 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 31 January 2008, discussed the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement for Charlie’s Soda was in breach of advertising standards. According to the item, the ASA ruled that the advertisement breached a standard which required advertisements not to use sexual content to promote an unrelated product....

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(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?...

Summary The apprehension by the police of two teenage girls in a clothing store, one of whom had been accused of shoplifting, was portrayed in a segment of Police, broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 8 April 1999. The faces of the girls were blurred. Police is a reality series which reports on the day-to-day activities of police officers. Mrs L complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the privacy standard. She subsequently advised that both girls were her daughters, but in her initial complaint referred only to the effect of the programme on her younger daughter who had been accused by police of stealing some clothing. She complained that despite the blurring of their faces, the girls were identifiable to friends and family....