Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the inclusion of a clip during Seven Sharp of two people pitch invading or ‘streaking’, one of whom was in a wheelchair, breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. While the Authority acknowledged streaking is illegal at major sporting events, the streaking in the clip occurred at a club football match. The reason the clip was highlighted and presented in a positive light was because one of the streakers was in a wheelchair, which is not a typical occurrence, and because the clip had been shared around the world. Further, at the beginning of the clip the host explicitly commented ‘Pitch invasion is frowned upon these days. ’ In the circumstances, the Authority found the clip was unlikely to promote or encourage streaking. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

As part of a news item on ‘main developments overnight’ in the war between Russia and Ukraine, a clip was shown where the presenter stated ‘This is footage we’re seeing from Ukraine, a Russian tank in the capital of Kyiv swerving to drive over the top of a car with someone inside. ’ The complainant alleged this was inaccurate, submitting it was actually a Ukrainian anti-aircraft vehicle which lost control and swerved into the vehicle. The Authority found that the exact type of military vehicle involved in the incident was not material to the broadcast and the accuracy standard did not apply to this point. In terms of whether the vehicle was attributable to Russian or Ukrainian forces, and whether the collision was deliberate, given conflicting reports it was unclear whether the broadcast was misleading on these points....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host and others were shown not wearing lifejackets while on a fishing boat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that it was irresponsible to broadcast footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets. Although the Authority understood why certain parts of the footage shown in the programme were a cause of concern for the complainant regarding water safety, these issues were unable to be addressed under the responsible programming standard. Not Upheld: Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host visited the Far North of New Zealand and went fishing at his childhood fishing spot with family and close friends. While on the fishing boat, the men were shown not wearing lifejackets. [2] Graeme Carlaw complained that broadcasting footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets promoted irresponsible behaviour....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter was discussing American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship. At the end of the segment the presenter remarked, ‘Yeah, they don’t have very good humour the British, do they? They probably didn’t get [Mr Spieth’s] speech. ’ A complaint was made that this comment was ‘racist and untrue’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comment was not malicious and was unlikely to cause widespread offence, therefore any potential harm caused by the broadcast did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy  Introduction[1] During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter discussed American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship....

Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 15 December 1997 focussed on two teenage girls whose mother had died, owing about $2,000 to Adelphi Finance. The broadcast related how the girls’ father had moved in to care for them and how, shortly after, furniture in their house had been repossessed on behalf of that company. Adelphi Finance Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was factually inaccurate, distorted the actual events, was unbalanced and partial, and presented a misleading impression of both the complainant and the circumstances of the repossession. TVNZ responded that the complainant was given every opportunity to present its side and to have it included in the item. Further, it noted that a studio summation of the complainant’s case was included at the end of the broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item featured a man who had deliberately driven his car into the reception of the IRD’s Christchurch building following an employment dispute – reporter stated that “he describes himself as a paranoid and a depressive” – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – person’s mental health status normally considered a private fact – interviewee disclosed fact to reporter – no reasonable expectation of privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 19 August 2009, reported that a man had deliberately driven his car through three glass doors into the reception of the IRD’s offices in Christchurch....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Birdland – presenter Jeremy Wells looked at birdlife in New Zealand – visited a weka farm in Southland – was shown caring for pet mice then releasing them to be eaten by weka – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – guideline 9d – animals badly treated – gratuitous and not justified by context – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Birdland, a locally produced wildlife programme hosted by comedian Jeremy Wells, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 14 November 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a One News item "fundamentally misrepresented" the Electoral Finance Bill by saying, first, that "new rules for election spending will mean big donations to political parties' campaigns will no longer be kept secret", and second, that "other secret donors would also be outed – donations over $5000 would have to be declared”. The complainant said the Bill required no greater degree of disclosure of the amounts of donations and the identities of donors than the existing law. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the story was about third party activities at election time, rather than donations to political parties. As third parties would have to register with the Electoral Commission if they intended to spend more than $5,000 on an election campaign, their identity would no longer be secret....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about Tauranga surgeon Dr Ian Breeze found guilty of professional misconduct – item described bowel operation which resulted in death of patient as “botched” – patient’s wife interviewed – relatives of other patients interviewed – allegedly breached good taste and decency – allegedly inaccurate, unfair, unbalancedFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “botched” is vernacular – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – matters raised by complainant not required for balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – matters raised by complainant not required for fairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tauranga surgeon Ian Breeze was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 2 December 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989My Wife and Kids – adult character made references to sex life – 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) – programme contained oblique and light-hearted sexual innuendo – mild sexual banter would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of My Wife and Kids was broadcast on TV2 at 5. 30pm on Wednesday 11 February 2009. At the beginning of the programme, a family were shown sitting around their kitchen table eating when the mother announced that she wanted to open her own restaurant. The children left the room and the mother and father were left sitting at the table....

ComplaintThe Book Group – drama – male sex scene – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Book Group is a series about a group of people who regularly meet to discuss books, and is described by the broadcaster as a “quirky and unpredictable drama”. An episode broadcast on 24 September 2003 at 10. 05pm on TV One included a scene of two men having sex. [2] Michael Beedell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was offensive and “inappropriate for public viewing”. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the scene did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Beedell referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintPromo for Always Greener – bare buttocks masked by a "smiley face" – indecent – harmful to children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – masking device not offensive – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – not harmful to child viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A promo for Always Greener was broadcast on TV One at various times on 2 February 2003. A "smiley face" was used to cover the bare buttocks of a male character. [2] John Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the human form in this manner was offensive and harmful to children. [3] In response, TVNZ said the "smiley face" was attached so that the promo could be shown at any time. It declined to uphold the complaint that the masking breached broadcasting standards....

SummaryItems concerning a research finding that a lyprinol extract from green-lipped mussels had been shown to be effective in killing cancer cells were broadcast on TV One on 30 July 1999 on One Network News and Holmes, commencing at 6. 00 pm and 7. 00 pm respectively. It was reported that researchers believed that the compound could inhibit the spread of certain types of cancers, and that they were about to commence clinical trials. The Ministry of Health complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the items were inaccurate, unbalanced, lacking in objectivity, and distorted the research and its significance. The tone and "sheer volume of coverage" contributed to this lack of balance, it wrote. The programmes failed to make it clear that Lyprinol was a dietary supplement and therefore a product about which therapeutic claims could not be made....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

ComplaintOne News – collapse of floor during wedding celebration in Jerusalem – amateur footage of moment of collapse – gratuitous and sensationalist – breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard G2 – footage a legitimate part of news item – not especially graphic – no uphold Standard V12 – action taken by broadcaster sufficient – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on One News at 6pm on 26 May 2001 reported on a civil disaster in Israel, in which the floor of a building in Jerusalem had collapsed during a wedding party, killing 30 people and injuring hundreds more. The item featured amateur video footage from the wedding celebration, including the moment the floor collapsed. J Carapiet complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached standards of good taste and decency....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the remark was blasphemous and offensive to Christians. The use of variants of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation does not amount to coarse language in modern secular society. Here it was intended to be humorous rather than abusive or offensive, and it was acceptable in context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The episode was rated AO and was broadcast on TV ONE at 10. 05pm on 26 September 2013....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...