Search Rapua

ComplaintWhat Now? PM – decriminalisation of cannabis – information intended for children – pictures of a joint being rolled – unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard G12 – visuals not consistent with voiceover commentary – unsuitable for children – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The decriminalisation of cannabis was the subject of an item on What Now? PM broadcast on TV2 on 13 July 2000 at about 5. 00pm. Footage accompanying the item showed a cannabis joint being rolled, and two people sharing a joint. Sharon Wilton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the visual content was unsuitable for inclusion in a programme intended for children. TVNZ explained that the purpose of the item was to inform children of the legislative moves to decriminalise cannabis and the position of MP Nandor Tanczos....

ComplaintWeddings: Happily Ever After? – update on some couples who appeared in Weddings – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – consent form for footage from Weddings – subsequent information freely given – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Weddings: Happily Ever After? was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2001. The programme reported on the state of the relationships of some of the couples who had appeared on previous episodes of Weddings. [2] Kylie and Simon Bernie, one of the couples, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme had breached standards relating to privacy. Mr and Mrs Bernie maintained that they had not consented to the inclusion of information about them or their baby daughter in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up promo – contained the word “fugly” to describe the appearance of a film character – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “fugly” used in a light-hearted and jovial manner – not used as a term of abuse – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A brief promo for Close Up was broadcast at 8. 33am during an episode of Breakfast and again at 3. 07pm during 60 Minute Makeover on Wednesday 7 April 2010. The promo discussed the new Nanny McPhee film starring Emma Thompson. [2] During the promo a voiceover said, “. . . Plus Oscar pro Emma Thompson on having to look fugly for film”, after which Ms Thompson was shown saying, “I really enjoy it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at the different road options for Wellington including upgrading State Highway 1 or creating a road through Transmission Gully – stated American army had offered to create the Gully road in 1940s – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) Broadcasting Act 1989 whether Americans made an offer to construct a road through Transmission Gully – item impartial – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item was an update on current situation – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-180 Decision No: 1997-181 Decision No: 1997-182 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint, under the balance and accuracy standards, about an item on 1News reporting on a New Zealand scientist’s research trip to Greenland. The complainant alleged that a comment made by the host that ‘if all the ice in Greenland were to melt, the sea would rise by seven metres,’ was incorrect, as research shows the sea level rise to be occurring at a much lower rate. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, noting reasonable viewers were unlikely to interpret the broadcast in the way the complainant described and were unlikely to be misled by the absence of further supporting information or information regarding who funded the research. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – 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 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a church’s campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word – “Jesus” and “Christ” repeated a number of times as examples of the language complained about – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – used as an expression of dismay and surprise – accepted colloquial use – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed Standard 6 (fairness) – Pastor Driscoll treated fairly in the item – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up at 7pm on TV One on 12 October 2005 reported that the Rangiora New Life Church had launched a campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word....

ComplaintAssignment – mental health system – complainant a mental health campaigner – introduced as mother of schizophrenic – prior agreement not to refer to her family – unfair – breach of privacy – upheld by TVNZ only as unfair FindingsPrinciple 3 and Guideline 3a – privacy principle (i) – disclosure of mental illness highly offensive and objectionable – breach of mother’s and son’s privacy – uphold OrdersCompensation of $1500 to the complainant; Contribution to the payment of CD’s expenses of $750. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Issues about the mental health system in New Zealand were addressed in Assignment broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 7 November 2002. The complainant is a mental health campaigner and agreed to participate so long as there was no reference to her family....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported allegations by several caregivers that they had been instructed to "assist" clients with masturbation and sex toys – allegedly in breach of children's interests Findings Standard 9 (children's interests) – adult nature of item clearly signposted – subject matter handled discreetly and sensitively – unsupervised child viewers unlikely to be watching – 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 Tuesday 21 October 2008, was announced at the beginning of the programme as follows: Tonight, an adult subject, we advise discretion. There are allegations tonight that caregivers of the intellectually disabled are being given explicit training to help clients reach sexual satisfaction. We hear from those workers who say they were demeaned and disgusted....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – Europe correspondent discussed 13-year-old boy who had allegedly fathered a child with a 15-year-old girl – reported that other boys had claimed there was a possibility they were the father – commented that the girl was “a bit of a goer” – presenter referred to the girl as a “slapper” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 7. 45am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 February 2009, one of the hosts interviewed TVNZ’s Europe correspondent, who provided a weekly round-up of topical European stories....

ComplaintAmerica’s Funniest Home Videos – home video of girl with frogs in underwear – bad taste – breach of standards relating to protection of children FindingsStandard G2 – no offensive behaviour – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A home video broadcast during the programme America’s Funniest Home Videos featured a young girl shown removing a number of frogs from her nappy. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 5. 00pm on 5 May 2001. Tim Dolan complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast breached standards relating to good taste and the protection of children. Mr Dolan considered it unlikely that the girl had put the frogs into her own nappy and that she had been coerced into appearing in the video....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Gathering Storm – use of obscene language in a PGR classified film – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and programme classificationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – warning not necessary – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Gathering Storm screened on TV One at 9. 15pm on 7 January 2006. It was a dramatised documentary about the life of Winston Churchill during the period between the two world wars. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that despite the programme being rated PGR, it contained objectionable language, and no warning had been given....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Bank Young Farmer Contest – included among a series of questions to the contestants was “The Queen of England’s husband is the Duke of…? ” – answer “Edinburgh” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint similar to past complaints – in view of comments in earlier decisions, on this occasion decline to determine as trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The National Bank Young Farmer Contest, screened at 9. 40pm on TV One on 8 July 2006, included a number of “quick fire” quiz questions put to the contestants. One question asked “The Queen of England’s husband is the Duke of…? ” The answer was given as “Edinburgh”. Complaint [2] Archie Lowes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the answer, the Duke of Edinburgh, was inaccurate....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....

FindingAuthority declines to accept the complaint on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction to do so. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] Between 5 and 7 November 2010 on One News, a number of items reported the performance of New Zealand rowers at the World Rowing Championships at Lake Karapiro. Complaint [2] Edward Visser complained that the items hardly included any reports on the performance of “foreign competitors”. Broadcaster’s Response to the Complainant [3] TVNZ responded that the complaint was a matter of personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Referral to the Authority [4] Mr Visser asked the Authority to review TVNZ’s decision. He disagreed that his complaint was a matter of personal preference, and argued that TVNZ was “breaching the Charter”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 42/95 Dated the 29th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RICHARD ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...