Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – two items – coverage of murder trial – complainant summonsed as juror – shown standing near to accused in the dock – implied supporter of accused – breach of privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – broadcasts did not maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual – current privacy principles not applicable – uphold as breach of s. 4(1)(c) OrderCosts to complainant of $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The trial in the Whangarei High Court of George Aaron Marson for murder was covered by Television New Zealand Ltd. An item on One News on Monday 28 May 2001 showed Mr Marson pleading not guilty. The same footage was used in an item reporting the jury’s guilty verdict screened on One News on 1 June. On each occasion, DA was shown standing behind the dock, about a metre away from the accused....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that the host of Breakfast had been "complicit in facilitating and allowing disparaging and racist remarks" to be made about Māori during an interview with child advocate Christine Rankin about the high rate of child abuse in New Zealand. The complainant said the host's "grossly offensive" questions had created the impression that only Māori abuse and kill their children, breaching standards of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Ms Rankin’s comments were not intended to disparage Māori but to call "for action on child abuse among Māori who are significantly over-represented in child abuse statistics". She had clearly stated that it was not just Māori who were abusing their children. The broadcaster said the host's questions had forced Ms Rankin to balance her comments....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion about the use of mobile devices in Parliament – brief interview with Act Party leader Rodney Hide – Mr Hide alleged he was treated unfairly in the preparation of the programme – said the reporter had obtained information through misrepresentation and deception – allegedly unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – alleged unfairness in preparation of programme not reflected in what was broadcast – programme not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Agenda, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 8 April 2006, discussed the use of mobile devices in Parliament. It noted that Standing Orders did not allow the use of mobile devices and laptops during Question Time....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – cartoon involving “King Dick” who ejaculated onto the face of a Chinese character – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – cartoon satirised anti-Asian views of former Prime Minister – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history. In an episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 20 July 2008, the programme reviewed past Prime Ministers of New Zealand, including Robert Muldoon and Michael Savage, also mentioning Helen Clark (the then Prime Minister) and John Key (the National Party leader)....

ComplaintAmerica’s Funniest Home Videos – home video of girl with frogs in underwear – bad taste – breach of standards relating to protection of children FindingsStandard G2 – no offensive behaviour – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A home video broadcast during the programme America’s Funniest Home Videos featured a young girl shown removing a number of frogs from her nappy. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 5. 00pm on 5 May 2001. Tim Dolan complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast breached standards relating to good taste and the protection of children. Mr Dolan considered it unlikely that the girl had put the frogs into her own nappy and that she had been coerced into appearing in the video....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male nudity – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on teenagers FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 23 April 2002 at 9. 40pm on TV One included a scene with a full frontal view of a naked man. [2] Graham Jacobsen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was too explicit, was not excused by the broadcast of a warning, and breached standards relating to teenager’s viewing interests....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two items on Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough. The Authority did not uphold complaints from Mr Gough that the people interviewed made false claims about him, that his response was not fairly presented, and that the programmes breached his privacy. The broadcasts carried a high level of public interest, the claims made by those interviewed were clearly framed as their personal opinions and experiences, and the Authority was satisfied that the broadcaster had sufficient basis for the story. Mr Gough was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy Introduction[1] Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough, who restored and mounted original war medals, and also sold replicas to complete sets of medals....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Seven Sharp segment breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The complainant alleged co-host Jeremy Wells held a cucumber in a way that could be ‘likened to a man holding an erect penis’. The Authority found any innuendo in Wells’s behaviour was low-level and would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed regular Seven Sharp viewers, noting the segment’s light-hearted tone. The Authority noted adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes and such content did not require an audience advisory. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

An appeal against the decision was dismissed in the High Court but the order for costs was quashed: CIV 2011-485-1836 PDF110. 08 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reporter stated that supernova was “240 light years from Earth” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989OrdersSection 16(1) – $50 costs to broadcasterThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 January 2011, reported on the discovery of a supernova by a 10-year-old Canadian girl. During the item the reporter stated: The Canadian Astronomical Society says Kathryn’s supernova was in a galaxy 240 light years from Earth....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out during an anti-terror raid in Brussels. During the item, the Europe Correspondent stated, ‘We’ve now heard that one suspect has been neutralised’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the term ‘neutralised’ was not accurate, appropriate or neutral language. The Authority found the choice of language was not a material point of fact in the item, which focused on an anti-terror raid linked to the Paris terror attacks. Further, the term ‘neutralised’ is at times used in the context of reporting on police or counter-terrorism action. The use of this term was not biased against, and did not imply fault on the part of, the Belgian Police. Not upheld: Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A news item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out that occurred during an anti terror raid in Brussels....

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 1989Police Ten 7 – wanted offender described as “possibly Māori but pale skinned” and “possibly Māori, [with a] light complexion” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – segment did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Māori as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A segment on Police Ten 7 profiled an aggravated robbery of a bar in Christchurch. Viewers were told that it was committed by three men, two armed with guns and one armed with a crowbar. The segment included security footage of the robbery, outlined the facts of the case, and outlined ways that viewers may be able to help police identify the offenders....

In a Seven Sharp item, a presenter expressed his surprise by asking an interviewee ‘how the bejesus did a snake get into New Zealand’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the item breached the good taste and decency standard. While acknowledging terms such as ‘Jesus’ and its variations like ‘bejesus’ may be offensive to some, the Authority found expressions of this nature used as exclamations, will not likely cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-058:Andrews and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-058 PDF489. 29 KB...

Summary A man who emulated the lifestyle of the fictional Austin Powers character was the subject of a news report on TV One broadcast between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 11 July 1999. In that context, reference was made to the recently released Austin Powers film "The Spy Who Shagged Me". Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "shagged" was an offensive macho term which degraded women and was not acceptable during a family hour broadcast. TVNZ acknowledged that the word "shagged" contained strong sexual innuendo, but argued that its level of offensiveness had been considerably moderated. It noted that the word was used only once during the item and that was in the context of the film’s title. It did not consider that that single reference breached any broadcasting standards....

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

SummaryA new dietary supplement, aimed at men with prostate problems, was the subject of an item on One Network News broadcast on 7 July 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. The item included interviews with a representative of the company which markets the product, a urologist, and a man who believed his prostate cancer was under control because of the supplement. Mr James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promotion of the product amounted to an advertorial and was irresponsible as it did not alert viewers to its known toxic effects. Furthermore, he questioned the qualifications of the product’s promoter to make medicinal recommendations on a prime time news programme. In its response, TVNZ denied that the item was an advertorial, pointing out that it was initiated by TVNZ because it was considered newsworthy....