Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on battle in Gaza Strip – reported 15 Palestinians killed including teenaged son of one of Yasser Arafat’s close allies – Palestinian combatants described as “militants”– item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – should have described Palestinian combatants as “terrorists” – should have described provocation for incidentFindings Standard 4 (balance) – brief item described incident and views of both sides – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “militants” not inaccurate – item not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item treated both sides of conflict fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast at 6pm on 12 February 2004 reported on a battle in the Gaza Strip between Israeli troops and Palestinians, in which 15 Palestinians were killed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on celebration of 38th anniversary of coronation of Maori Queen at Turangawaewae marae – item explained that significant part of celebrations included remembering deceased friends and family – comments from Professor James Ritchie as to why this aspect of celebrations significant – commented on Maori and Pakeha attitudes towards death – allegation that item unbalanced and inaccurate in that it portrayed generalised view of spiritual attitudes based on racial lines FindingsStandard 4 (Balance) – item did not discuss issue of controversial public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) – comments from Professor Ritchie expression of opinion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMercury Lane – promo – reference to pubic hair – broadcast during Son of God on Good Friday at 10. 30am – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – spoken not visual reference – context – no uphold Standard 9 – children not unfamiliar with nudity – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A question to an artist about the public reaction to the portrayal of pubic hair was included in a promo for Mercury Lane, a programme about the arts. The promo was broadcast at about 10. 30am on Good Friday during the screening of the documentary Son of God, which reported the results of a scientific examination into issues raised about Jesus Christ. [2] Carole Bennett complained that the broadcast of the promo, during family viewing time, was disgusting....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintOne News – item on Ngati Ruanui’s acceptance of Treaty of Waitangi claim settlement – conflicts of 1860s–1880s described as Taranaki Land Wars – description unfair and inaccurate – item biased FindingsStandard G1 – not a point of fact – no uphold Standard G6 – not unbalanced, unfair or impartial – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 12 April 2001 reported that Ngati Ruanui of South Taranaki had voted to accept a $41 million offer from the government to settle a Treaty of Waitangi claim dating back to the 1860s. During the course of the item, the conflicts of the 1860s-1880s were described as the Taranaki Land Wars....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the release of the Government’s Budget that day – discussed impact of the budget on a range of New Zealanders including three “high earners” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – brief references to the incomes of three high earners did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements about the impact of the budget on three high earners were not material points of fact – viewers would have understood that the point being made was that they would have more money each week than lower earners – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – references to incomes of high earners did not result in them being treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – investigated high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand – interviewed two girls who unexpectedly fell pregnant, one of whom chose to have an abortion – presenter conducted studio interview with an “expert in youth sexual health” – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed why teenage pregnancy rate was so high in New Zealand, not the merits of abortion – viewers would have been aware of alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 28 October 2010, considered high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand. The presenter stated in the introduction, “The issue is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion....

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. 1992-096:McKay and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-096 PDF359. 24 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-026:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-026 PDF306. 1 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-047:Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NZ) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-047 PDF267. 19 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-049:Rosa and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-049 PDF371. 91 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-011:Sugrue and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-011 PDF551. 41 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-035: Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-035 PDF237. 41 KB...

An episode of Sunday included an investigation into the Delta strain of SARS-CoV-2 and its effects. Whilst focused on Australia, the segment included an interview with a teenager in Ireland who had recovered from COVID-19. The complainant stated the segment breached the accuracy standard as it implied the interviewee had COVID-19 in Australia and had contracted the Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant (neither of which was true). The Authority did not uphold the complaint. The Authority found the issues raised were unlikely to affect a viewer’s understanding of the segment as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....