Search Rapua

ComplaintFair Go – “Fair Go Ad Awards” – presenter lampooned margarine advertisement – sexual suggestions allegedly offensive and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 – sexual innuendo oblique and inexplicit – comedy – not upheld Standard 9 – not unsuitable for children in context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The annual “Fair Go Ad Awards” included a segment during which the presenter lampooned an advertisement for margarine, which had been nominated for “worst ad”. The episode of Fair Go was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 15 October 2003. [2] Geoff New complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the parodies contained sexually suggestive material which breached standards of good taste and decency and was unsuitable for children. [3] In response, TVNZ disagreed that the programme breached broadcasting standards....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-102:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-102 PDF330. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-175:Leitch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-175 PDF576. 5 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-042:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-042 PDF365. 34 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about offensive language on My Kitchen Rules. The Authority found three instances of language across a 90-minute programme was not outside the expectations of the programme’s M-L classification (M – suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over; L – language may offend); the classification and onscreen warning provided sufficient information to make an informed viewing decision or to exercise discretion; and the broadcast would not cause widespread undue offence in the context. For the same reasons, the Authority was satisfied the broadcaster took adequate steps and provided sufficient reliable information to ensure children could be protected from potentially unsuitable content.   Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWARD MALCOLM and OTHERS of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 88/95 Decision No: 89 /95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALVA LANGFORD of Gisborne and ELISABETH GRUIJTERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-071 Dated the 11th day of July 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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Packed to the Rafters – woman briefly put her hand down the front of her boyfriend’s pants, who jumped and exclaimed “You’ve got chilli on your hands! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – scene was fleeting and playful – intended to be humorous rather than sexual – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – promo correctly rated PGR and screened during Coronation Street – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo did not contain AO material and would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Q+A broadcast on TVNZ 1, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which included questions about the Government’s COVID-19 response, leaking of information regarding the ‘Green School’ funding, New Zealand First Party funding, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a tax-payer funded trip of Mr Peters’ two friends to Antarctica. The complainant argued the interview was biased and unfair, and breached the fairness and balance standards. The Authority found the robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected of a high profile and senior political figure like Mr Peters on matters of significant public interest in the lead up to a general election....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two answers provided during Mastermind New Zealand, about historical New Zealand events, were inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority noted that both questions appeared to have been answered accurately by the contestant. Viewers were unlikely to be left misled or misinformed by the omission of further context around these answers, particularly given the well-known quiz format of the programme. The programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance, given historical events were raised only briefly in the form of quiz questions, and the requirements of the balance standard therefore did not apply.   Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

ComplaintSecret New Zealand – death of Norman Kirk – various theories explored – a conspiracy theory advanced linked death to trial of Dr Bill Sutch for spying – inaccurate details of trial – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – speculation advanced – not fact – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Sutch not dealt with unfairly in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Secret New Zealand presented three perspectives on the death in 1974 of former Prime Minister, Norman Kirk. The series examined events in New Zealand which were not adequately explained at the time . The episode complained about was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 2 September 2002. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate and unfair....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-113–114:Smits and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-113, 1993-114 PDF798. 21 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-042:Talbot and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-042 PDF695. 01 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-031:Terry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-031 PDF262. 84 KB...

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

ComplaintHolmes – canal development in Whitianga – ministerial order to start again the consents process – angry reaction among residents – no comment from Minister – unbalanced FindingsStandard G6 – balance achieved throughout item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The angry reaction in Whitianga to the Conversation Minister’s order to consider again aspects of the consents process for the proposed canal development in the town, was covered in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 16 May 2001. Dorothy Stafford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the purpose of the item was to condemn the delay, it had suggested that the project had been terminated and had given only cursory treatment of the legal reasons that required the Minister to take action. Accordingly, she wrote, the item was unbalanced....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Not Going Out – scene showed character dancing with baby – held baby at arm’s length and moved him from side to side – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – character did not shake baby – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no actual violence – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – classified AO and screened at 11pm outside of children’s viewing times – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – characters fictional – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not specify who he considered had been denigrated or discriminated against – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-025:Gray and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-025 PDF1. 23 MB...