Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Frontseat – contained brief scene from A Clockwork Orange where a man is beaten – programme was classified G and broadcast on a Saturday morning at 7. 55am – allegedly in breach of programme classification and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – scene complained about contained material which was unsuitable for children – broadcaster should have classified as a PGR programme – upheld (majority) Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not exclude material likely to be unsuitable for children – inappropriately classified and broadcast during a G time-band – broadcaster failed to consider the interests of child viewers – upheld (majority)No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Frontseat, a New Zealand-made arts programme, was broadcast at 7. 55am on TV One on Saturday 18 March 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – man shown gathering scallops – statement in programme that “there was sufficient there anyway to issue him with a couple of infringement notices” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – filmed in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on Coastwatch broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 14 February 2005 showed a diver approached by Ministry of Fisheries officers while gathering scallops. The fisheries officer told him that he should only have collected 60 scallops, whereas he had 104 scallops on the boat. The fisheries officer explained that this was “not in the area of what we consider to be a serious offence”, and the diver said that he had been trying to do things by the book....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reference to the “Labour Government” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme informationFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld Standard 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast an item on Close Up on 21 July 2005 at 7pm. During the course of a political interview, the presenter used the term “Labour Government” to refer to the Government. Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the term “Labour Government” was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme information. She noted that the government was made up of a Labour-Progressive Coalition....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Father Ted – alleged crude humour – alleged disgraceful portrayal of Christian leadersFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g – Father Ted does not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Roman Catholic priests – legitimate work of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Father Ted is a long running British comedy series. A repeat of episodes from the second series screened on TV One on Saturday evenings in November 2003 at 7. 30pm. Television New Zealand Ltd described Father Ted as a series which “makes fun of human foibles through the adventures of a small group of Roman Catholic priests assigned to a remote, fictional island off the coast of Ireland. ” The complainant watched the episodes broadcast on 22 and 29 November....

Complaint An Audience with the King – offensive language – broadcaster failed to consider children’s viewing interests FindingsStandard 1 – majority – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – broadcaster was mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Audience with the King recorded the performance of stand-up comedian Mike King before a live audience. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 11 October 2002. [2] Graham Fox complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was offensive, and that it was irresponsible to have broadcast such material at a time when children were likely to be watching television. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the programme in context did not breach current norms of good taste and decency, and that it had considered the viewing interests of children....

ComplaintFair Go – item about identity theft – reporter obtained driver’s licence in someone else’s name – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 referred only – no encouragement to break the law – fraud and crime elements emphasised – high public interest and educative value – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the issue of identity theft. It featured a Fair Go reporter investigating the issue by obtaining a driver’s licence in someone else’s name. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 April 2003. [2] The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had failed to refer to the "criminal" actions of the reporter in obtaining the driver’s licence....

ComplaintFamily Health Diary – item broadcast during One News – included comment that high blood cholesterol was a risk factor in heart disease – followed by claim that a product called "Logicol" could reduce cholesterol absorption – medical information – unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsFamily Health Diary is advertising programme – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promotion for the product "Logicol" was included in the "Family Health Diary" broadcast on TV One during One News between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 27 September 2001. [2] Mr James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item included medical information which was unbalanced and inaccurate. [3] As TVNZ said that the "Family Health Diary" was an advertising programme put together by Brand World, it referred the complaint to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board for determination....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male sex scene – sodomy – breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1, Guideline 1a – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 14 May 2002 at 9. 35pm on TV One included a scene of two males having sex in a car park. [2] Rob Hodgkinson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was offensive and unacceptable even for "adult only" viewing. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the scene did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Hodgkinson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

SummaryItems concerning a research finding that a lyprinol extract from green-lipped mussels had been shown to be effective in killing cancer cells were broadcast on TV One on 30 July 1999 on One Network News and Holmes, commencing at 6. 00 pm and 7. 00 pm respectively. It was reported that researchers believed that the compound could inhibit the spread of certain types of cancers, and that they were about to commence clinical trials. The Ministry of Health complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the items were inaccurate, unbalanced, lacking in objectivity, and distorted the research and its significance. The tone and "sheer volume of coverage" contributed to this lack of balance, it wrote. The programmes failed to make it clear that Lyprinol was a dietary supplement and therefore a product about which therapeutic claims could not be made....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – episode showed three dogs being taken from their owner as they were not registered and were aggressive towards other dogs – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – focus was on dogs being removed from owner because they were not registered – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

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. 1993-095:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-095 PDF676. 46 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-141–143:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Alcohol Healthwatch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-141, 1993-142, 1993-143 PDF714. 53 KB...

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. 1992-087:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-087 PDF842. 45 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-015:Dunckley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-015 PDF93. 26 KB...