Search Rapua

Complaint 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson – naturopath promoted soy products as being efficacious for menopausal women – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsAdvertising programme within the meaning of s. 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and therefore not within the Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During an item on 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson broadcast on TV One on 4 July 2000, a guest promoted the use of Blackmore’s soy products as being healthy and offering relief against menopausal symptoms. A second 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson programme, broadcast on 6 July referred to a soy-based product. Richard James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programmes were deceiving to viewers as they were actually a commercial promotion, and that it was inaccurate to claim that soy products had a palliative effect on menopausal symptoms....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at the different road options for Wellington including upgrading State Highway 1 or creating a road through Transmission Gully – stated American army had offered to create the Gully road in 1940s – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) Broadcasting Act 1989 whether Americans made an offer to construct a road through Transmission Gully – item impartial – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item was an update on current situation – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C)(C)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to China as “the godless state” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “godless” used in this context to mean “without a god”, not “wicked” – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not constitute a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “godless” to mean “without a god” did not jeopardise editorial independence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, made by the BBC, was broadcast at 6pm on 25 December 2007....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. On 15 March 2019 a special 1 News broadcast covered the terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. The broadcast featured footage of victims being taken into hospital, many of whom had visibly sustained gunshot injuries and/or were identifiable. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the coverage breached the privacy standard. The Authority found that media coverage of this event had high public interest in light of the unprecedented nature of extreme violence that occurred. The media had an important role to play in informing the public of events as they unfolded, including the nature and scope of injuries suffered and the action of first responders, including medical personnel. The Authority acknowledged that the repeated use of footage of identifiable victims amounted to a breach of privacy but found that the public interest defence applied....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-015:Dunckley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-015 PDF93. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-002:Bartlett and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-002 PDF307. 38 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eye to Eye – host asked his guests whether the Labour or Māori Party candidate would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election – did not mention a third candidate for the electorate – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Eye to Eye, broadcast on TV One at 9. 30am on 5 February 2005, the host asked his two female guests whether Dover Samuels (Labour Party) or Hone Harawira (Māori Party) would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the 211 Helpline – said Opposition MPs were questioning whether service was too expensive and duplicated the service run by the Citizens Advice Bureau – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed – item did not need to include details about what the 211 service might cost if rolled out nationally – majority considers item should have explained that 211 service was operating more extensive hours than the CAB – majority uphold Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under Standard 4 Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On TV One at 6pm on 23 May 2006, an item on One News discussed the 211 Helpline, a community helpline run by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)....

SummaryA trailer for the AO-classified programme Water Rats was shown during the PGR-classified programme Party of Five at about 8. 03 pm on TV2 on 17 November 1998. Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the trailer showed a couple in bed, clearly naked and kissing. There was a clear inference that they were having sex, she contended. Given the time of broadcast, the behaviour shown was distressing, she wrote, and was best kept to private bedrooms. The trailer also did not show acceptable behaviour for the time band within which it was screened, Mrs Barker said. TVNZ responded that the scene in the trailer was very brief, contained no frontal nudity and only implied sexual activity. It had screened during a programme which contained references to sexual activity, and in context it was not unsuitable viewing for children under the guidance of an adult....

Summary The apprehension by the police of two teenage girls in a clothing store, one of whom had been accused of shoplifting, was portrayed in a segment of Police, broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 8 April 1999. The faces of the girls were blurred. Police is a reality series which reports on the day-to-day activities of police officers. Mrs L complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the privacy standard. She subsequently advised that both girls were her daughters, but in her initial complaint referred only to the effect of the programme on her younger daughter who had been accused by police of stealing some clothing. She complained that despite the blurring of their faces, the girls were identifiable to friends and family....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 91/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOUTHLAND FUEL INJECTION LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R TUNNICLIFF of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

SummaryAn episode of Newsflash broadcast on TV 2 on 15 September 1998 at 8. 00pm contained, among other things, skits with a religious theme. Mrs Gruijters complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the skits were tasteless and offensive and she objected to what she perceived as an attempt to get laughs at all costs. TVNZ responded informally in the first instance, and when asked to respond formally, advised that it considered the complainant’s objection was really one of personal preference rather than an assertion that statutory standards had been breached. Dealing with the specific matters to which Mrs Gruijters objected, it maintained that there was nothing in the programme which breached the good taste standard, and nothing which represented any group as inherently inferior or encouraged discrimination against them. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mrs Gruijters referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-055 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua 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 1989Close Up – item reported on an incident at Fairfield College in which a group of teenage girls were admitted to hospital after taking drugs – included summary of problems previously experienced at Fairfield College – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – in any event, alternative viewpoints were presented and representatives from Fairfield College were invited to appear on the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate and did not create a misleading impression about the problems faced at Fairfield College – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Fairfield College was provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment and its response was adequately conveyed in the broadcast – Fairfield College was treated fairly – not upheld This…...

Interlocutory matter concerning whether formal complaint was lodged in writing with the broadcaster within the prescribed statutory timeframe Fair Go – formal complaint lodged by email shortly before midnight on 20th working day after the broadcast – broadcaster declined to accept the complaint on the basis it was out of time – question whether formal complaint was lodged within 20 working days as required by the Broadcasting Act 1989 FindingsDefinition of “working day” in section 2 of the Act specifies the days which are not to be counted as “working days” but does not specify times of the day – in the absence of explicit indication of times, ordinary meaning should be adopted – a “day” runs from midnight to midnight – complaint was lodged before midnight on 20th working day and therefore should have been accepted by the broadcaster, even though the email was not read until the following day OrderSection…...