Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of the complainant looking at the camera and giving the finger. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the complainant’s privacy. The footage of his private property had been filmed more than eight years earlier, and the complainant had made it clear he wanted no involvement in the programme. Despite repeated objections, his image continued to appear in the opening titles of series four of the programme. Upheld: PrivacyOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of a man looking at the camera and giving the finger. The episode was broadcast on 5 December 2013 on TV2....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the couple's privacy as the information was already in the public domain at the time of broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown....

Complaint60 Minutes – promo – clip of Norm Hewitt – use of word "shit" – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – breach of classification codes and time bands – not mindful of the effect on children – explicit material unacceptable in a promo FindingsStandard G2 – quietly used vernacular figure of speech – context – no uphold Standard G8 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard G12 – important social message for younger viewers – no uphold Standard G24 – no violence or other explicit material – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the current affairs programme 60 Minutes contained a 30-second clip of professional rugby player, Norm Hewitt. It was broadcast on 20 October 2001 at 6. 35pm during One News....

Complaint Coca-Cola Chart Show and Coca-Cola RTR Countdown – music videos – sexual themes offensive – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 7, Guideline 7a – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a and 9d – no disturbing material – no uphold; Guidelines 9c and 9i – irrelevant – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Music videos Kiss Kiss, Hot in Herre and Are You In? were broadcast on TV2’s Coca-Cola RTR Countdown at 6. 00pm on 20 July 2002 and on the Coca-Cola Chart Show at 10. 00am on 21 July 2002. [2] Tina Swenson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the music videos were sexually explicit, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go Ad Awards – two teams of advertisers were asked to “sell us Quade Cooper for New Zealand’s next Prime Minister” during live advertising awards – included comments such as, “everyone hates Quade Cooper” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – piece was intended to be light-hearted and humorous, rather than malicious or abusive – presented in the spirit of good-natured ribbing and team rivalry – Mr Cooper not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community, not individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority’s determination of the complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Documentary entitled Murder on the Blade?...

ComplaintThe Last Word – item about high-achieving student – presenter made disparaging comment – unfair FindingsStandard 6 – comment about adolescence rather than the featured student – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item about a high-achieving 13-year-old boy in the United States was broadcast on The Last Word on TV One at 10. 30pm on 10 June 2003. At the item’s conclusion, the presenter made a comment about what she saw as the young man’s sense of self-satisfaction. [2] Frank Rogers complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the presenter’s disparaging comment was unfair and could invite bullying against the studious and clever. [3] In response, TVNZ stressed the style of the programme and the presenter’s well-known disdain for hypocrisy. As it regarded the comment as humorous, TVNZ did not uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that emails between employees were crucial evidence in the prosecution case of the founder of a failed finance company – six email addresses were shown on screen – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identifiable individuals linked to email addresses – 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 9 August 2008, reported that “a series of emails between Bridgecorp employees has become crucial evidence in the prosecution case against the finance company’s founder”. Bridgecorp’s former executive directors had allegedly raised millions of dollars from investors knowing that the company was in default....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed alleged rape victim in high-profile police trials – discussed whether current system in New Zealand was fair to alleged rape victims – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item omitted crucial information about evidence in police trials which was highly relevant to the controversial issue under discussion – majority uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday entitled “Justice Denied” was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 11 March 2007. The item looked at the issues raised by the acquittal of three former Rotorua police officers (Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards) in respect of a historical rape allegation. The reporter noted that the three men had also been acquitted in the high profile rape trial involving Louise Nicholas....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – New Zealand Labour Party Opening Address included discussion about Capital Gains Tax – showed list of countries entitled “OECD countries with some form of tax capital” which included Singapore – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air TV Code – inclusion of Singapore in list graphic was not a material point of fact – Singapore was not referred to verbally – broadcaster and the Labour Party acknowledged that it was an error and it will not appear in future broadcasts – Opening Address not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – discussed concerns that the product was defective and putting homes at risk – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – seen overall, item seriously criticised TimberSaver product – no scientific evidence provided to refute criticisms – no evidence provided of quality and suitability of product – unbalanced – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – scientist on programme not independent – conflict of interest – contrary to guideline 5e – upheld – other aspects of accuracy complaint not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – seen overall, item unfair to Osmose – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,000 Payment of costs to the Crown $2,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 DNZ: Speed Thrills – documentary included footage of young male drivers exceeding speed limit – allegedly encouraged law breaking and glamorised speedingFindings Standard 2 (law and order) and Guidelines 2a, 2b and 2c – did not glamorise, condone or encourage speeding – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The programme DNZ: Speed Thrills was broadcast on TV One on 15 March 2004 at 8. 35pm. It included footage of two young men driving at night in excess of the speed limit. Complaint [2] Alexander Johnston complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the young men were exceeding the speed limit by “considerable margins” and that TVNZ staff must have encouraged them to do so. Otherwise, Mr Johnston wrote, it would have been pointless to have installed cameras in their cars....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about NZ Army engineers in Iraq – reference to an article written by the complainant and published in the “Sunday Star-Times” – item’s focus was engineers’ reaction to the article’s claims that their achievements had been exaggerated – complainant alleged that item unfairly represented article, and was inaccurate and unbalancedFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item’s focus was reporting reaction to the article’s claims of exaggerating the achievements of engineers and did not require further balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurately reported that newspaper article said that the engineers were exaggerating their achievements – not otherwise inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – article ambiguous in parts – unfair to complainant to misreport the exaggeration claims as being made by the engineers – not otherwise unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained footage of bare breasts and women in their underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information and children’s interests standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of semi-naked women were not sexualised or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item conveyed a positive message – item did not denigrate women – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – programme did not use subliminal perception – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme classified PGR – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....