Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-067–068:Newborn and Becker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-067–068 PDF (1. 07 MB)...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-021:New Zealand Fishing Industry Association and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-021 PDF916. 23 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-034:Brock and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-034 PDF354. 32 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-073:Bradstock and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-073 PDF595. 61 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-164:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-164 PDF362. 98 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWARD MALCOLM and OTHERS of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – repeat screening of an episode showing a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for infringing the fishing regulations – allegedly breached the privacy of the familyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A repeat broadcast of an episode of Coastwatch screened on TV One at 1pm on 3 October 2004. Coastwatch is a reality series which follows the activities of various law enforcement officers who patrol the coastline. The original episode had screened at 8pm on 15 March 2004. [2] The broadcast showed a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for taking more cockles from the beach than permitted by law....

Summary An interview with a bisexual author of erotic books was included in 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 31 October 1999 between 7. 30–8. 30pm. The woman described herself as "an amateur sexologist" and explained how she had become an expert on the subject of erotica. Mr Hausmann complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the material was pornographic, breached the good taste standard and was unsuitable to be shown at a time when younger viewers could be watching. He also maintained that the item lacked balance because it did not show the serious downside of what he termed sexual addiction. TVNZ responded that the programme had profiled a New Zealand woman who had been approached by a publisher to produce a work on female erotica. It suggested that the complainant had made an unfair assumption by concluding that the woman had a sexual addiction....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on New Zealand protestor’s decision to travel to Gaza with his son as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla – commented on recent Israeli commando raid on another aid flotilla – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on one man – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Close Up was an unclassified current affairs programme – item would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during Coronation Street – contained sexual references – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual references were fleeting and innocuous – consistent with viewer expectations of Coronation Street and PGR timeband – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, was broadcast on TV One between 7. 30pm and 8. 30pm on 12 July 2011, during Coronation Street which was rated PGR. [2] In the promo, the characters were shown talking about their quiz topic strengths, while thinking about their personal lives, as follows: Emma: I like animals and I know a bit about cooking. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the National Party’s proposed asset sales policy – stated that the Government had refused to release information under the Official Information Act and that a complaint to the Ombudsman revealed that the Government had very little official advice regarding its claim about limiting foreign ownership – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item highlighted that the Government received limited official advice on limiting foreign ownership and questioned its decision not to release further information about that aspect of the policy – was not overly critical of the Government – high value speech – included comment from Prime Minister John Key – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-017:Buck and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-017 PDF361. 78 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-041:Zohrab and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-041 PDF273. 25 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-091:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-091 PDF374. 61 KB...

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....