Search Rapua

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-010 Dated the 13th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLEN J LITTLE of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-093 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR J J SMALL 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 1989Beyond the Darklands: Bert Potter – programme was a case study of Bert Potter based on analysis by a clinical psychologist and recollections of former members of his Centrepoint commune – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme was a case study by psychologist of Bert Potter and his involvement in Centrepoint – historical interest for viewers but no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate points of fact – programme would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individuals or organisations 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 – 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 1989Tonight – item looked at the government’s rule change on foreign investment and its impact on Auckland airport shares and the share market in general – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – complaint vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 4 March 2008, reported on the share market’s turbulence after the government announced a change to foreign ownership rules preventing the sale of a major stake of Auckland International Airport shares to a Canadian pension fund. The item included interviews with Prime Minister Helen Clark, National Party leader John Key, Auckland airport chairman Tony Frankham, Graeme Bevans from the Canadian pension fund and Bruce Sheppard from the New Zealand Shareholders Association....

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party – woman said “I just can’t trust you” referring to John Key, Leader of the Opposition – allegedly denigrated Mr Key Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E3 (denigration) – statements in the advertisement did not reach the threshold for a breach of the denigration standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party was broadcast on TV One on Sunday 2 November at 6. 30pm. It showed a woman in her home giving a drink to a toddler sitting in a high chair. The woman said to camera: You hear people saying, “Helen’s been there a while, give the other guy a go”. And I was thinking, “yeah, sounds fair enough”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-045 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintThe Sopranos – scene in which child says "Fuck you, Santa! " – not socially responsible – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Cross Reference: Decision No. 2000-104 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Sopranos was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 4 October 2001. The Sopranos is a drama about an American-Italian mafia family living in the eastern United States. [2] Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a scene in which a child says "Fuck you, Santa! ". He considered that it was an "outrage" that "the programme makers would allow a child to say something like that" and socially irresponsible of TVNZ to allow the broadcast. [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item about Tana Umaga’s appointment as All Black captain – reference to Mr Umaga’s dreadlocks – presenter allegedly implied that dreadlocked sportspeople are incompetent and engage in sexually deviant behaviour and law breaking – allegedly breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter’s comments innocuous – neither indecent nor in bad taste – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – matters complained about not expressed or implied in the broadcast – no basis for any of the complainant’s allegations in presenter’s comments – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item profiled the complainant, Donald McDonald – introduction referred to some of his previous complaints including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not suggest that all or most of his complaints were unfounded but that Mr McDonald complained “too often about too little” – provided context to complaints and complainant put forward his own perspective – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of fairness This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-149:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Alcohol Healthwatch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-149 PDF487. 39 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-035: Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-035 PDF237. 41 KB...

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about footage on a 1 News item of a person’s negative reaction after receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The Authority acknowledged the high public value and education in news reporting about COVID-19 testing and found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. The law and order, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Balance, Accuracy...