Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that news items on 1 News about New Year’s celebrations welcoming in 2020 were inaccurate when referencing the start of ‘the second decade’. The Authority found that the broadcast did not refer to ‘the second decade’, only ‘the new decade’. The reference to 2020 as the start of a new decade (when arguably the decade begins in 2021, as modern calendars began counting at 1) did not amount to a material inaccuracy for the purposes of the accuracy standard. The Authority also found that the broadcast’s references to ‘the new decade’ (and similar) were not inaccurate as the term has different meanings when used from calendrical and cultural perspectives. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coke Countdown – Top 40 music video clips – allegedly sexually explicit and in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – denigration requires a high threshold – no denigration of women – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interest of child viewers – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Coke Countdown was broadcast on TV2 on Sunday 8 May 2005 from 10am to 12 noon. [2] The programme was a Top 40 show, featuring the most popular hit songs of the week. The fourth spot in the line up featured the song “Candy Shop” by hip hop artist 50 Cent, and featured female vocalist Olivia....

ComplaintHolmes – item about eviction of tenants behind in payments – distressing situation – complaint that broadcaster failed to show discretion and sensitivity FindingsStandard 6 and Guidelines 6b and 6e – breach occurs when Standard contravened, not Guideline – Guideline 6f also relevant to decision on Standard 6 – tenants not dealt with fairly – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The eviction of tenants who had fallen behind in a rent-to-buy agreement was shown in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2003. The landlady explained that she had taken the action to protect her investment. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it had not shown discretion and sensitivity in a distressing situation in which there was no apparent public interest....

Summary The film "Striptease" which starred Demi Moore and Burt Reynolds was screened at 8. 30pm on TV2 on 31 January 1999. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film, which depicted a woman with naked breasts during a striptease act, was offensive and unsuitable for younger viewers. He also claimed that the film was of no social or educational value. TVNZ advised Mr Harang that it did not consider that the broadcast had breached norms of decency and taste. The broadcaster also maintained that it had been mindful of the effect of the programme on children because it had assigned the film an AO classification and had preceded its broadcast with an explicit warning. The film, it said, had screened after the established 8. 30pm watershed. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Harang referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintNew Zealand Festival: Virginity – language – "did you fuck him? " – offensive FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – not gratuitous – acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme New Zealand Festival: Virginity was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 19 February 2001. One of the seven women who spoke of their first sexual experiences reported that she was later asked by an acquaintance, "did you fuck him? " Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "fuck" was grossly offensive. He argued that the classification of a programme as AO and the inclusion of a warning did not excuse the broadcaster from the requirement to maintain standards of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Castle promo – contained comments, “a big time slugger gets whacked”, and “someone used his head for batting practice” – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – promo contained references to violence but no visual depictions of violence – would not have disturbed children – content was correctly classified PGR – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Castle, a criminal drama in which the murder of a baseball player was being investigated, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 10pm on 5 January 2011, during Masterchef UK, which was rated PGR. A voiceover said, “a big time slugger gets whacked”, and a character in the programme was shown commenting, “someone used his head for batting practice”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rugby World Cup Semi-Final: France v Wales – commentator used the word “Jesus” with reference to Wales being given a penalty kick – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “Jesus” used as exclamation and spontaneous reaction during a live sports programme – not used in derogatory or abusive manner – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the Rugby World Cup Semi-Final between France and Wales, broadcast on TV One at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-029:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-029 PDF815. 18 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-103:Thompson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-103 PDF343. 63 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-129:Kubala and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-129 PDF269. 54 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of This Town showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this encouraged cruelty to animals and was inappropriately rated G. While some viewers may have found the footage unpleasant, it was not unexpected or gratuitous as the subject matter was well signposted, and it highlighted the reality that we live in a society which eats meat and that animals must be killed and prepared in order for this to occur. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] This Town, a documentary series about people living in small towns in New Zealand, profiled a group of duck hunters and showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-093:Pryor and Corrigan and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-093 PDF588. 82 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-001:Cook and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-001 PDF301. 93 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-056:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-056 PDF485. 84 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of the complainant looking at the camera and giving the finger. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the complainant’s privacy. The footage of his private property had been filmed more than eight years earlier, and the complainant had made it clear he wanted no involvement in the programme. Despite repeated objections, his image continued to appear in the opening titles of series four of the programme. Upheld: PrivacyOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of a man looking at the camera and giving the finger. The episode was broadcast on 5 December 2013 on TV2....