Search Rapua

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary An item on Teletext reported on the death of a man from head injuries which he had sustained the previous day when visiting a motor cycle club. It also reported that three men who were at the scene "when he was beaten" were being interviewed. Ms MacDonald complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item, which she said was broadcast on 7 September 1999, was fabricated and totally wrong. As the ex-wife of the dead man and on behalf of his two young sons, she said they had been devastated by the report. She sought a correction from the broadcaster. TVNZ responded that "a second news item following the autopsy" had not been published because of editorial pressures. It agreed that a later explanation should have been aired, and advised Ms MacDonald that it had been broadcast on Teletext on 10 September....

ComplaintOne News – inaccurate to state that Maori have a direct genealogical link with flora and faunaFindingsStandard G1 – clearly identified as a belief – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The Maori perspective on the genetic engineering debate featured in an item broadcast on One News on 18 September 2000. It was explained that Maori opposition to genetic engineering was based on traditional beliefs, including that Maori were descended from flora and fauna. Mr R D Hutchins complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was "astoundingly untrue" to suggest that human beings were descended from plants and the various insect, reptile, bird and rat species of New Zealand. TVNZ emphasised that the statement had a cultural context and, within that cultural dimension, the statement to which Mr Hutchins took exception had not breached standard G1....

An item on 1 News reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. In describing both contenders, the reporter referred to Bridges as an ‘absolute political mongrel’. The complainant stated this reference breached various standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it was inappropriate to describe the Minister as a mongrel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the term had a separate, complimentary, meaning which was clearly intended in this context. The discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 102/94 Dated the 3rd day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C R TURNER of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996 - 029 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-057 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CENTRE FOR PSYCHO- SOCIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT of Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-187 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GLENYSS A BARKER of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An episode of a reality series entitled Petvet was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 7 October 1999. It followed the day to day activities at a veterinary clinic in Lower Hutt and included a sequence showing the clinic’s dealings with a couple who wished to have their cat put down. L, the cat’s owner, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the sequence breached her right to privacy. She complained that the documentary had portrayed her and her partner as callous owners of animals and they had been subjected to criticism as a result. She also noted that the programme had identified her by name and, in addition, had included a sequence showing the veterinarian dialling their confidential telephone number which, she said, could have led to "menacing phone calls"....

ComplaintMusic Video – "Beautiful Day" – offensive behaviour – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – kissing shown – not offensive – no uphold Standard G12 – content acceptable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A music video was broadcast on TV One at about 8. 00am on Sunday 8 October 2000 between a religious programme and a children’s programme. The song "Beautiful Day" was sung by U2. Barry Marshall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the video contained "licentious behaviour" which he considered offensive. In his view, it was unsuitable for broadcast at any time, but particularly so when placed between two "quality programmes". TVNZ responded that the song’s lyrics were not unsuitable for child viewers and that the visuals of a couple kissing did not exceed community norms of decency and good taste....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rude Awakenings – scene in which man and woman have sex on a table – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Rude Awakenings was a New Zealand drama series focussing on the lives of neighbouring Ponsonby families. An episode screened at 8. 30pm on Friday 16 February included a scene in which one of the central female characters – who was dissatisfied with her marriage – had sex with her personal trainer on a table. The personal trainer continued to watch sport on television while having sex. [2] The scene was shot from behind the male character, whose naked buttocks were visible. No female nudity was shown....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Orange Roughies – promo – used words “for Christ’s sake” – allegedly blasphemous and derogatory of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – distinct different dictionary meanings of “Christ” - context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration – high threshold not reached – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A promo for the forthcoming drama series Orange Roughies was broadcast on TV One on a number of occasions in mid May 2006. In one of the brief sequences included in the promo, one of the characters exclaimed “you’re married for Christ’s sake! ” as he walked past a parked car containing a husband and wife apparently having sex....

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....

ComplaintMessiah 2: Vengeance is Mine – promo – programme to be broadcast at 8. 30pm – promo screened during Holmes before 7. 30pm – graphic – inappropriate time slot FindingsStandard 7 – classification appropriate – no uphold Standard 10 – appropriate discretion exercised regarding violence – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Messiah 2: Vengeance is Mine was broadcast on TV One at 7. 20pm on Friday 11 July 2003 during Holmes. The programme Messiah 2, rated AO, was to be screened at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 July. [2] Annette Ward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the graphic and disturbing promo had been broadcast at an inappropriate time. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the promo contained no explicit violence and did not include the scenes which had justified the film’s AO rating....

ComplaintOne News – Police shooting of Steven Wallace – correction – inaccurate FindingsStandard G14 – correction not inaccurate – no inaccurate implication – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A correction was broadcast on One News about an erroneous statement in an earlier item about the Police shooting of Steven Wallace. The correction was broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 16 May 2001. A A K Grant complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the correction "compounded and underlined the original misreporting", as he considered that it implied that the shooting related to breaking windows. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint as it considered that the correction was accurate. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Grant referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News At 4. 30– item on two New Zealanders who assisted with oil spill clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico – stated that the pair thought that New Zealand maritime authorities would be well equipped to deal with a spill of the same scale on New Zealand shores – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – not a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – news reporter’s comment clearly conveyed technicians’ opinion – item not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News At 4. 30, broadcast on TV One at 4....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item featuring comedian Leigh Hart reviewing the election campaign the night before the general election was to be held – Mr Hart used a whiteboard which occasionally displayed the name of then Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a light-hearted review of the election campaign – it did not purport to be a serious or balanced discussion of a controversial issue – appearance and disappearance of Mr Goff’s name on the whiteboard did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – in any case the item discussed a number of politicians and included comment from them – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought had been treated unfairly – individuals taking part or referred to in the…...