Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-167 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (NEW ZEALAND) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Q+A broadcast on TVNZ 1, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which included questions about the Government’s COVID-19 response, leaking of information regarding the ‘Green School’ funding, New Zealand First Party funding, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a tax-payer funded trip of Mr Peters’ two friends to Antarctica. The complainant argued the interview was biased and unfair, and breached the fairness and balance standards. The Authority found the robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected of a high profile and senior political figure like Mr Peters on matters of significant public interest in the lead up to a general election....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a news report covering the US Democratic Convention breached standards by referring to then US President Donald Trump as ‘Trump’ or ‘Donald Trump’ rather than with the title ‘President’. The broadcast was fair to Mr Trump, considering his position and profile as a politician and public figure. It was not misleading to refer to Mr Trump as ‘Donald Trump’ and the report was unlikely to cause widespread offence. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to Mr Trump as an individual. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 31/94 Dated the 26th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-070:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-070 PDF484. 44 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-034:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-034 PDF 335. 83 KB...

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

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

Complaint60 Minutes – interview with swimmer Trent Bray – allegations of steroid use – unfair to interviewee – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – swimmer given opportunity to tell his side of the story – not treated unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Swimmer Trent Bray, who had tested positive to a performance-enhancing drug, was interviewed on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 26 March 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. In an emotional sequence, he denied the allegation. J B Meiklejohn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inexcusable and unjustifiably insensitive to broadcast footage of the swimmer "incoherent in grief". In its response, TVNZ advised that the swimmer had not been coerced into participating in the interview, and had been aware of the scope of questions to be asked....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – during interview presenter noted that Māori Party was using “a Chinese lawyer who has a lack of knowledge of Māori process” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s comment was factual and did not carry any invective – broadcast did not encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Te Karere, broadcast on TV One at 4pm on 20 January 2011, the presenter conducted a studio interview with Professor Ranginui Walker about MP Hone Harawira’s position in the Māori Party and the various sources of Mr Harawira’s anger at his party....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during One News – characters used the terms “balls”, “arse” and “bastard” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language of a low level – One News aimed at adult audience – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting the promo during One News – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, was broadcast on TV One between 6pm and 7pm on Wednesday 24 August 2011, during One News which was unclassified....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-100 Decision No: 1997-101 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MURRAY ARNESEN of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Some dissatisfaction expressed by three purchasers of cars from Saevue Motors in New Plymouth was considered in an item broadcast on Holmes, between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 11 December 1997. The possibility of odometer tampering was raised. Mr Rawlings complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. He noted that there had been no effort to gauge the extent of the problem among the company's total customer base, and he claimed that the company was portrayed as a "monster". On the basis that the information contained in the item justified the investigation, TVNZ reported that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to participate in the programme. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Grassroots Business – included report from Telecom representative which promoted a Telecom product or service – failed to distinguish between programme and advertising material – Standard 8 and Guideline 8a – TVNZ upheld complaint – TVNZ advised clarity required in any future series – complainant dissatisfied with action taken and referred action taken to Authority – a second complaint that other sponsors’ products and services also not clearly distinguished – not upheld by TVNZ – also referred to AuthorityFindings i) Standard 8 – broadcaster retained editorial responsibility – not upheld ii) Action taken – sufficient in the circumstances – complaint is a reminder to all broadcasters of obligations under Standard 8 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Grassroots Business was shown on TV One on Saturday mornings at 7....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tomorrow La Scala! – Lexus Sunday Theatre – operetta company in maximum security prison using prisoners to rehearse and perform the musical “Sweeney Todd” – included scenes of male rape and consensual heterosexual intercourse, and use of word “fuck” – alleged excessive violence, alleged offensive behaviour and language, and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – not screened in children’s normal viewing time – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) and Guideline 10d – violence was graphic but acceptable given theme of play and care shown with detailed warning – not upheld Comment Authority to consult further on arguments for more explicit warnings This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tomorrow La Scala! was broadcast on TV One’s “Lexus Sunday Theatre” beginning at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Medical drama series Bodies – scene involving woman giving birth and then having difficulty delivering placenta – woman’s genitals explicitly shown – allegedly breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Bodies is a medical drama series set in the obstetric and gynaecological ward of a fictional English hospital. The episode screened on TV One on 9 May 2006 at 9. 30pm commenced with the story of a woman giving birth. Following the birth scenes, the woman was shown lying on her back with her legs elevated in stirrups, awaiting the delivery of the placenta. When the placenta was eventually delivered, the woman suffered a uterine inversion, whereby the uterus is literally turned inside-out and appears outside the vagina....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a sex scene in Nip/Tuck in which one of the lead characters had sex with a patient after asking her to place a paper bag over her head was offensive, and should not have been shown at 10pm during the school holidays. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the sex scene was relatively discreet, and had showed a side view with no nudity. The broadcaster noted that Nip/Tuckwas rated Adults Only and had been restricted to a 9. 30pm showing because it contained a greater degree of sexual activity, potentially offensive language and realistic violence. The broadcaster argued that 9. 30pm was adults only time even during the school holidays. The Authority’s DecisionThe Authority said the scene was important to the storyline as it illustrated the central character's decline into sexual dysfunction....

Summary Good Morning’s nutritionist interviewed a representative from the International Soy Advisory Board and demonstrated the use of soy products in cooking in a broadcast by TVNZ on TVOne on 3 May 1999 beginning at 10. 00am. Mr James of Whangarei complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate as it did not warn viewers of the known health risks of using soy products, nor did it reveal that the guest was either a consultant to or an employee of a company which markets the products. TVNZ responded that the programme did not purport to investigate the merits of soy products, but was essentially a cooking demonstration carried out while the guest discussed the principal ingredient. It maintained that as research on the benefits of soy products was equivocal, it was not in a position to judge whether the broadcast was accurate....