Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-100:Minister of Women's Affairs (Hon Jenny Shipley) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-100 PDF635. 3 KB...

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

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-029:Dewar and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-029 PDF476. 89 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Q+A considered new initiatives proposed by the National Party to tackle domestic violence. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the item 'focused exclusively on women as victims and men as perpetrators of domestic violence', which showed a lack of balance and denigrated men. References to 'men' and 'women' did not amount to a 'discussion of gender' requiring the presentation of alternative views, as alleged by the complainant. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] An item on Q+A considered new initiatives proposed by the National Party to tackle domestic violence. The item contained an interview with the Minister of Justice and a panel discussion with a political scientist, a lawyer and a communications consultant....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Criminal Minds featured the murder of three restaurant workers during an armed robbery, prompting the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit to re-open a similar cold case that occurred six years earlier. The episode contained violence and drug use. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached broadcasting standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and law and order. The Authority found that while the episode contained challenging content, it was classified AO and was preceded by an adequate warning. The programme’s classification, pre-broadcast warning and established reputation as a crime drama enabled viewers to make an informed viewing decision. The programme did not contain visual acts of violence, and the drug use was not portrayed in an instructional or encouraging manner and was part of the episode’s narrative context....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about an item on 1 News, which discussed the Auckland Council’s vote on the draft proposal for the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax (the Tax). The Authority found the segment, through the omission of key information about the ongoing consultation and the presenter’s use of the terms ‘green light’ and ‘done deal’, was likely to mislead viewers into thinking the proposal voted on by the Council was final and that there was no further period of public consultation. The importance of keeping audiences informed on issues of public and political significance was emphasised by the Authority....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News including criticism of Easter trading restrictions and of the councils imposing them, in the wake of COVID-19 and its impact on retailers. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced on the basis it failed to include the views of the councils being criticised, and of others who supported current restrictions, such as unions and churches. The Authority found, in the context of an item discussing criticism of the status quo, and where debate about Easter trading restrictions and coverage of such debate is ongoing, viewers were unlikely to be left misinformed by the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a reporter’s comment during a segment on 1 News concerning the death of a child from a throat infection breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The Authority acknowledged the relevant phrase represented a poor choice of words. However, in the context, the Authority accepted that it was inadvertent and did not merit regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News was denigrating or unfair by including footage of a displaced West Auckland resident, following the Auckland Anniversary floods, taking a donut from a box. The complaint stated the footage represented a racial stereotype, degrading the woman. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard as it concerned the woman as an individual rather than a recognised section of the community, and was not unfair as she was not portrayed unfairly negatively. In any case, inclusion of the footage was an editorial choice that was open to the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning a Sunday investigation report looking into issues with emergency housing in Rotorua, and a follow-up item on 1 News. The majority of the Sunday broadcast focused on allegations against the largest contracted emergency housing provider in Rotorua, Visions of a Helping Hand (Visions), and its contracted security company Tigers Express Security Ltd – both led by CEO/Director Tiny Deane. Visions complained the broadcast was unbalanced, misleading, and unfair to Visions, Tigers Express Security and Deane. Noting the very high public interest and value in the story overall, the Authority found most of Visions’ concerns with the broadcast could have been addressed had it provided a substantive response to the reporter on the issues raised – who had made numerous attempts over more than a month to obtain comment from Visions and Deane....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that broadcasting an image of Julian Batchelor’s car (sign-written with ‘stop co-governance’ advertising, including Batchelor’s website domain name, and cell phone number) breached Batchelor’s privacy due to the car’s licence plate not being blurred. The Authority found that no private information had been disclosed – noting the car was parked in a publicly visible place, and the Authority has previously found brief footage of licence plates in a broadcast does not amount to an offensive disclosure of private facts, for the purposes of the standard. Not Upheld: Privacy...

ComplaintHolmes – item about Death with Dignity Bill – man featured with motor neuron disease – wanted choice about his time of death – unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – human interest story – referred to issue of euthanasia – euthanasia canvassed in other programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Shortly before the Death with Dignity Bill was to have its first reading in Parliament, an item on Holmes featured a person dying from motor neuron disease who hoped the Bill would be passed. If the Bill was passed, the person said that he would have the right to choose the time of his death. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 July 2003. [2] D A Armstrong and P Schaab both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

Complaint60 Minutes – "Double Lives" – documentary about alleged "double lives" of Fiji Red Cross Director John Scott and New Zealand partner Gregory Scrivener, murdered in Suva in July 2001 – unsubstantiated allegations about drug abuse and sex abuse – breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order; the privacy of the individual; balance, fairness and accuracy; the protection of children; and discrimination FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – privacy – individuals deceased – family consented – no uphold Standards G1 and G21 – no evidence of inaccuracies – no uphold G4 – deceased individuals – not applicable – no evidence family dealt with unfairly – no uphold G5 – sub judice rule does not apply to overseas trial – no risk of prejudice because of delay anyway – no disrespect to principles of law – no uphold G6 – majority – balance achieved during period of current interest as story slow in breaking –…...

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

ComplaintBig Train – skit insulted Christians – blasphemy – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – legitimate humour – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A skit during the comedy programme Big Train portrayed an employer and employee as a devil and a Christ-like figure respectively. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 11. 00pm on 17 April 2001. B S G Lambert complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast ridiculed and offended Christians and breached standards of good taste. TVNZ did not consider that the programme had breached standards of good taste. It maintained that the skit had legitimately lampooned religion. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, B S G Lambert referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News report breached the accuracy standard through its story about the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s findings concerning a fatal shooting. The complainant considered the story misleading for its emphasis on the shooting being ‘unjustified’ without further context, including regarding the ‘fine margin’ of the decision. When considered as a whole, the Authority found a reasonable viewer was unlikely to come away from the broadcast with a wrong idea or impression of the facts. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in? ’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...