Search Rapua

Summary A documentary about cigarette smoking in New Zealand called "Up in Smoke" was broadcast on Assignment on TV One, between 8. 30pm and 9. 30pm on 23 September 1999. The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Limited ("Tobacco Institute") complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in numerous ways. The Tobacco Institute also complained that the programme portrayed tobacco company executives and Maori women in a way which was likely to encourage discrimination against them. TVNZ responded that the programme was not unbalanced or unfair to the tobacco industry. In its view, the programme surveyed a broad range of relevant views about smoking, and included a tobacco industry perspective. TVNZ also disagreed that it had breached broadcasting standards relating to discrimination. TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Intrepid Journeys – dancing champion Brendon Cole visited Vanuatu – locals told him how to kill a chicken using a slingshot – he could not manage to hit it and eventually killed it with his hands – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme showed daily reality of a different culture and way of life – was clear that Mr Cole was upset about killing the chicken so viewers were not encouraged by the programme to kill animals in that manner – footage was not gratuitous in context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was correctly rated PGR – scene was signposted so parents could exercise discretion with regard to their children’s viewing – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item about the delay in election results from the Wellington local body elections – reporter described the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system as “discredited” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – focus of item not on STV system – no balance required on STV issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – in light of focus of item, word “discredited” referred to administration of STV system, not system itself – sufficient basis for reporter to use word accurately in this context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight on TV One at around 10. 35pm on 20 October 2004 reported that, twelve days after the local body election, the final vote for the Wellington City Council had been announced....

ComplaintMercury Lane – promo – reference to pubic hair – broadcast during Son of God on Good Friday at 10. 30am – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – spoken not visual reference – context – no uphold Standard 9 – children not unfamiliar with nudity – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A question to an artist about the public reaction to the portrayal of pubic hair was included in a promo for Mercury Lane, a programme about the arts. The promo was broadcast at about 10. 30am on Good Friday during the screening of the documentary Son of God, which reported the results of a scientific examination into issues raised about Jesus Christ. [2] Carole Bennett complained that the broadcast of the promo, during family viewing time, was disgusting....

ComplaintOne News – item reported survey of teenagers’ attitudes – suggested amongst other things trend to drugs away from alcohol and disrespect for New Zealand Flag and Anthem – inaccurate – biased FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for principles of law – no uphold Standard G6 – not unfair or unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The findings of a survey of teenagers were reported in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 29 October 2001. Among the findings were changes in attitudes to drugs, the National Anthem and the New Zealand Flag. [2] Kenneth Lord complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the findings were biased and amounted to propaganda....

ComplaintFair Go – item about pamphlet distributed by complainant – a legal firm – offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in dealing with ACC – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced and complainant’s response presented inadequately – unfair as story subject’s waiver was incomplete – inaccurate – hearing sought in view of numerous complex legal and factual issues Decision on application for hearingDeclined This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTURY DECISION Background [1] A pamphlet offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in securing compensation from ACC was distributed by the complainant – a legal firm. On behalf of a victim, named as "Sally", Fair Go reported her dissatisfaction with the complainant and investigated the propriety of a pamphlet of this kind. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 26 June 2002....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for the series Broadchurch screened during a PGR-rated episode of Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the promo contained material likely to alarm or distress children. Any suggestion of something sinister occurring in the series was implied only, and not explicitly described or shown. None of the content warranted an AO classification or later time of broadcast. Not Upheld: Children's InterestsIntroduction[1] A two-minute promo for Broadchurch outlined the premise of an upcoming series. It screened within a PGR-rated episode of Masterchef New Zealand, at 7. 30pm on TV ONE on Sunday 4 May 2014. [2] Samantha Fleming complained that the promo contained material that would have been distressing for children and was unsuitable for the timeslot....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The ITM Fishing Show, the host travelled to Mexico for a sport fishing trip, and used live bait to catch marlin. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the practice of live baiting was cruel and breached standards. The footage was not unexpected in a fishing programme, and the complainant’s concerns relate more to the programme genre in general, and personal lifestyle preferences, which are not a matter of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence Introduction [1] During an episode of The ITM Fishing Show, the host travelled to Mexico for a sport fishing trip. The host and crew used live bait to catch marlin, a traditional method used in Mexico....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision]A ONE News item showed security footage of a violent attack on a liquor store worker by four men to assist police in identifying and apprehending the attackers. Two explicit warnings were given prior to the footage. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the violence shown was gratuitous. It was an important news story aimed at identifying and catching the attackers and was accompanied by clear warnings from the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] A ONE News item showed a violent attack on a liquor store worker by four men. The security footage showed the store worker being punched, kicked and dragged across the store, having a bottle of spirits smashed over his head and being kicked in the head as he lay on the ground....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, host Mike Hosking offered his views on the incident of Prime Minister John Key's repeated pulling of a café waitress' ponytail. He described the waitress' motivations for speaking out as 'selfish' and 'a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks'. The Authority upheld complaints that this was unfair to the waitress. While public figures can expect criticism and robust scrutiny, in the Authority's view the waitress was not a public figure. The format of the 'final word' segment did not allow for a response from the waitress so she was unable to defend herself in this context. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints. Upheld: FairnessNot Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationNo OrderIntroduction[1] In April 2015 there was public disclosure of some conduct of the Prime Minister....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad showed dog handlers with the Department of Corrections searching visitors to a prison. The episode showed two occasions of the complainant (SW) being searched; firstly, her bag was searched when she was driving onto prison premises, and secondly, a sniffer dog identified that she was carrying contraband (tobacco) inside the prison and she was shown surrendering this to Corrections staff. In both instances her face was blurred. The Authority upheld SW’s complaint that broadcasting the footage breached her privacy. She was identifiable despite her face being blurred (by clothing, body type, voice, etc), and the disclosure of private facts about her, including prescription drugs she was taking, among other things, was highly offensive....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast of the personal views of certain celebrities who supported changing the flag resulted in an unbalanced and partial programme. While the item featured several celebrities in support of the alternative flag, it also mentioned some who supported the current flag. In the context of the item this was a sufficient acknowledgement of significant viewpoints on the issue. Furthermore, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the different perspectives on the flag referendum issue. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad featured footage taken at a named international airport in New Zealand, during which a Ministry for Primary Industries detector dog found an apple in a couple’s bag. PN, a Quarantine Officer, was shown questioning the couple about the apple and issuing them with a fine. The faces of PN and the couple, and PN’s identity tag, were blurred and PN was not named. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment breached PN’s privacy. While it found that, despite the blurring, PN was identifiable in the broadcast, it did not consider that any private information was disclosed during the segment....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed a five-week, outdoor ‘life skills’ camp held for high school students on Great Barrier Island. Footage of a sheep being restrained to be killed for food, the sheep’s dead body and blood, and the gutting of the sheep was shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the killing of the sheep was ‘brutal’ and unacceptable for broadcast. While the footage was graphic and would not have appealed to all viewers, it was adequately signposted during the item, which enabled viewers to exercise discretion and decide whether to continue watching. The actual killing of the sheep was not shown, and the footage appeared to show standard, accepted practices of killing animals for food in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item referred to during 1 News Coming Up reported on a meeting between the President of the United States of America, President Trump, and Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. During the update, the newsreader said, ‘So, what did Canada’s leader Justin Trudeau say about Trump’s Muslim ban? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘Muslim ban’ was inaccurate, in the context of the brief ‘coming up’ teaser which aimed to convey a lot of information in a short period of time. In this particular case it was acceptable shorthand referring to Executive Order 13769, and briefly highlighted a topic of discussion between the two leaders....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A brief item on 1 News discussed a protest in Christchurch against Vero Insurance (Vero) regarding outstanding insurance claims. The item contained footage of the protestors and the newsreader stated that ‘[One of the protestors] says Vero has kept them locked in a virtual prison for seven years. ’ The broadcaster upheld a complaint from Vero under the balance and fairness standards, as Vero ought to have been given an opportunity to comment. Vero referred the complaint to the Authority on the basis it was dissatisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster in response to its original complaint, and it also maintained that the accuracy standard was breached. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the statement complained about was a statement of opinion and therefore the accuracy standard did not apply....