Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback regarding Fiji’s involvement in Pacific Islands Forum – made comment “you ungrateful swine” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comment directed at Fijian leaders – not a section of the community to which standard applied – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on the morning of 5 August 2010, two MPs were invited onto the programme to discuss New Zealand’s involvement in the Pacific Islands Forum; a topical issue because the 41st leaders meeting was at that time being held in Vanuatu....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item reported on marketing strategy to enhance Palmerston North’s image as a visitor destination – included file footage of clock tower and other buildings – footage taken prior to $24 million redevelopment – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – file footage was extremely brief – not a material point of fact – would not have misled viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A satirical item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Friday 1 October 2010, entitled “Worst Town”, reported on an initiative by Palmerston North City Council to improve the city’s image by marketing its top seven destinations. The presenter introduced the item as follows: You remember comedian [name] branded it ‘suicide capital of New Zealand’....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item – street march through Auckland – topless protester shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – no warning required – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item not harmful to children – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 5 March 2005 showed a street march through Auckland that day in support of “family values”. A topless woman was among those shown protesting against the views expressed by the marchers. Complaint [2] Alexander Watts complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached standards of good taste and decency and children’s interests....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the 1 News Vote 17 Leaders Debate, moderator Mike Hosking questioned Bill English about a damaged fuel pipeline in Auckland that caused disruption to flight services, using the phrase ‘for God’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Hosking’s use of this phrase was blasphemous and offensive. The Authority has consistently found that variations of ‘God’, ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations and in this case, Mr Hosking used the phrase to express his own, and voters’, frustration at the Government’s management of the fuel crisis. In these circumstances, the Authority found that the alleged harm did not outweigh the important right to freedom of expression, particularly in the lead up to a general election....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-061:Department of Social Welfare and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-061 PDF521. 05 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

Complaint Strassman – offensive language – "fuck" – interview with Rima Te Wiata breached her privacy – offensive behaviourFindings(1) Standard G2 – context – warning – AO time and classification – no uphold (2) Privacy – no private facts revealed – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of the comedy programme Strassman was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 16 May 2000. Brian Shearer complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the repeated use of the word "fuck" during the programme, and an interview with Rima Te Wiata, which he considered breached her privacy and was in bad taste due to questions asked about her sex life. TVNZ responded that the programme was intended as adult entertainment, began well after the watershed, carried an AO certificate and was preceded by a warning about strong language....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Island Wars promo – broadcast during America’s Funniest Home Videos – contestant said “ready to kick some New Zealand arse” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – tone was playful and light-hearted – G rating appropriate – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the programme Island Wars, in which contestants from New Zealand and Australia competed against each other in a variety of challenges, was broadcast during America’s Funniest Home Videos between 4. 30pm and 5pm on Saturday 1 August 2009....

Summary It was reported on One Network News on 18 November 1998 that a yacht which had been grounded in a bay in the Far North had been looted, and that the abandoned boat had been stripped of its electronic gear, solar power unit and rigging. Mr Jackson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the report was grossly exaggerated. He advised that the boat had not been abandoned, and had not been stripped by looters. He acknowledged that some small items had been stolen but noted that all but one of those items had been recovered by the police and returned to the owner. Mr Jackson contended that the report had done the Far North community considerable harm and its errors warranted an apology....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Air New Zealand planned to be the first airline to use biofuels on commercial flights – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was ambiguous whether using biofuels would decrease carbon dioxide emissions from planes – upholding the accuracy complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on TV One on 5 June 2008, reported on the announcement by Air New Zealand that it hoped to be the first airline to use biofuels on commercial flights. [2] It was reported that Air New Zealand planes pumped around three-and-a-half million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News, Marae and Te Karere – One News newsreader referred to Prince William as the popular choice for the next “King of England” – Marae discussion on constitutional change – presenter and guests referred to “Queen of England” – Te Karere item referred to Princes Charles as the “monarch of England” – all items allegedly inaccurate, and in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 – no basis for complaint – not upheld Standard 5 – not inaccurate – use of phrase “Queen/King of England” acceptable description – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast items on Marae on 14 November 2004, One News on 11 February 2005 and Te Karere on 8 March 2005, all of which referred in some way to the British Royal Family....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – character used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Facelift, a satirical programme which lampooned politicians and other high profile New Zealanders, screened on TV One at 10. 05pm on 19 September 2005. On this occasion, Facelift ridiculed television coverage of the election results two nights earlier. The character playing TV One’s political editor, Mark Sainsbury, used the words “Jesus” and “Christ”. Complaint [2] Brian Stratford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character had used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” as exclamations. He considered that this was blasphemous and offensive....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tagata Pasifika– item reported on the Government’s Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (accuracy) – item would not have misled viewers – item did not purport to be an in depth discussion of the scheme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tagata Pasifika broadcast at 11. 05pm on 3 May 2007, reported on the announcement of the New Zealand Government’s Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme (the RSE scheme)....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at the government’s surplus and the likelihood of tax cuts – presenter made a comment regarding possible tax cuts – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – presenter’s statement appeared to take a position – statement was balanced by comments from the political reporter – issue of tax cuts had a long history and was well publicised – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 4 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 October 2007, discussed the cause and effect of the Labour-led Government’s $8. 6 billion surplus and the likelihood of tax cuts before the next election....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – man shown gathering scallops – statement in programme that “there was sufficient there anyway to issue him with a couple of infringement notices” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – filmed in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on Coastwatch broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 14 February 2005 showed a diver approached by Ministry of Fisheries officers while gathering scallops. The fisheries officer told him that he should only have collected 60 scallops, whereas he had 104 scallops on the boat. The fisheries officer explained that this was “not in the area of what we consider to be a serious offence”, and the diver said that he had been trying to do things by the book....