Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about homeopathy sceptics – included comment from sceptics, a homeopathy client, a practitioner and New Zealand Council of Homeopaths – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – three interviewees offered views in favour of homeopathy – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view – 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 Wednesday 10 February 2010, featured an experiment conducted by the New Zealand Sceptics Society in which they tried to overdose on homeopathic remedies. They reached the conclusion that the remedies were essentially water containing extremely diluted substances....

SummaryA nightmare housemoving experience was related by a woman featured in a programme entitled "My House, My Castle" broadcast on TV2 on 19 July 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The programme was previewed in the days preceding the broadcast. Michael Bott, on behalf of Brittons Housemovers (Wellington) Ltd, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that footage showing a truck belonging to the company was used to illustrate the "housemoving story from hell". In fact, Brittons Housemovers had had no connection with the move, he wrote. The company cited a number of broadcasting standards which it contended were breached by the programme and the promos. In its response, TVNZ explained that the shots of the housemoving truck were archival shots which had been used to illustrate the story. It maintained that the company could not have been identified from that footage....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item featuring comedian Leigh Hart reviewing the election campaign the night before the general election was to be held – Mr Hart used a whiteboard which occasionally displayed the name of then Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a light-hearted review of the election campaign – it did not purport to be a serious or balanced discussion of a controversial issue – appearance and disappearance of Mr Goff’s name on the whiteboard did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – in any case the item discussed a number of politicians and included comment from them – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought had been treated unfairly – individuals taking part or referred to in the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – during interview with Kiwi actor, presenter commented “I was about as popular as a wet fart in a wedding dress” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was a brief, throwaway remark used to convey the meaning the presenter was unpopular – upholding complaint would be unreasonable limit on right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, the presenters interviewed a Kiwi actor. One of the presenters stated: I’ve actually got to make a confession right here and right now [laughter from actor]… what a bang-up geezer [name] is, because I did an interview with [name] about two weeks ago....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-127:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-127 PDF215. 44 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-045:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-045 PDF316. 8 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

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. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On an episode of Seven Sharp, the hosts discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and interviewed a law professor. The professor explained the contrast between the dispute resolution mechanisms of the TPP and those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After the interview, one host asked the other, ‘So these foreign countries could potentially hold the government for ransom down the track? Surely it goes both ways; surely we’ll have some control’. The other host replied, ‘Of course it does. Who did we take to the WTO? We’ve taken a number of countries to the WTO. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was misleading in that it suggested that TPP disputes would go through a similar process as the WTO, when in fact this was not the case for investor-state disputes....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, characters Lincoln and Jack took Nicole out for drinks to take her mind off her attacker. Lincoln, who was previously in a relationship with a man, was shown taking an illegal drug which he gave to Nicole. Later in the episode, Lincoln and Nicole were shown in bed together. In the episode broadcast the following evening, Jack asked Lincoln about being gay and sleeping with Nicole. Lincoln replied that he did not have to ‘put a label on it’, saying, ‘I’m just me’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme’s portrayal of Lincoln’s sexuality, by a straight actor, could have damaging effects on young viewers or those struggling with their sexuality....

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that news items on 1 News about New Year’s celebrations welcoming in 2020 were inaccurate when referencing the start of ‘the second decade’. The Authority found that the broadcast did not refer to ‘the second decade’, only ‘the new decade’. The reference to 2020 as the start of a new decade (when arguably the decade begins in 2021, as modern calendars began counting at 1) did not amount to a material inaccuracy for the purposes of the accuracy standard. The Authority also found that the broadcast’s references to ‘the new decade’ (and similar) were not inaccurate as the term has different meanings when used from calendrical and cultural perspectives. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

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...

In an item about road rage on Seven Sharp, the presenters were discussing slow drivers when Jeremy Wells made the comments ‘grandpa’ and ‘always a grandpa’. Media Matters in NZ complained the comment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial or frivolous. Declined to determine: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard regarding a 1 News report that ‘thousands have again protested outside the White House against the recent Supreme Court decision to scrap the constitutional right to abortion’. The complaint was that the United States constitution does not include the right to abortion. The Authority found the item was not inaccurate in this respect, as a previous Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade) had interpreted the US Constitution as conferring a right to abortion. Not upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item, reporting on the sustainability implications of the Government’s programme providing free period products to schools, breached the offensive and disturbing content broadcasting standard. The broadcast outlined types of sustainable period products and included a demonstration on how to wash period underwear, using red-tinted liquid. The Authority found the content was within audience expectations of the item, and news programming more generally, and unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint the documentary Web of Chaos breached multiple standards. The complainant alleged the broadcast represented ‘women who like sewing and interior design as extremists’, which was allegedly ‘racist, sexist, anti-Christian and anti-women of Celtic origin’, lacked any balancing comment from women involved in the community, contained multiple inaccuracies, and was unfair. The Authority found the broadcast did not discriminate against or denigrate any of the nominated sections of the community and the broadcast was materially accurate. This was because the relevant comments were not claiming that all people participating in online craft communities were white nationalists, but rather these communities (like many other online communities) were exposing inadvertent users to extremist ideas. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The complainant referred a complaint concerning an item broadcast on 1 News accompanied by submissions in excess of 100 pages, indicating further submissions would be required. The Authority ordered the complainant to resubmit the complaint in a more proportionate form, constituting a single submission not exceeding 2,000 words, within 20 working days of this decision. Order to resubmit complaint in a form not exceeding 2,000 words within 20 working days...