Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-095:Edmunds and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-095 PDF846. 89 KB...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The documentary Swipe with Caution investigated the use of online dating apps, including interviews with relevant experts and dating app users, as well as detailing specific case studies. One of those case studies involved the complainant, who was convicted of sexual violation and assault after meeting with Ms X through a dating app. Ms X, through an actor, retold her story of the night. The complainant considered the broadcast was inaccurate and portrayed him unfairly. He argued Ms X’s recollections were presented as matters of proven fact but were inconsistent with the agreed facts identified in the Court’s sentencing decision. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the particular segment had high public value, as it involved a survivor telling her story, and was otherwise materially accurate....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a segment on Police Ten 7 breached the discrimination and denigration standard. A man called a woman who had called the police a ‘nosey motherf***ing white c***’. The Authority found in the context of the long-running series, and the particular programme, this comment did not reach the threshold for a finding that it encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy and fairness standards about a broadcast of 1News discussing the United States’ decision to send more combat aircraft and war ships to the Middle East following the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. The complainant argued the broadcast was unbalanced and biased towards American and Israeli interests by omitting to mention Haniyeh was the chief negotiator for Hamas in ceasefire negotiations relating to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. The Authority found the broadcast was more of a report on recent events than a discussion of issues to which the balance standard might apply....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed the New Zealand Government’s ‘open door policy’ on allowing foreign visitors in New Zealand to drive. The item featured an interview with a road safety campaigner, who said it was unfair that Chinese visitors were able to drive in New Zealand with international licences, while New Zealanders had to apply for a permit to drive in China. The item included numerous references to Chinese drivers in New Zealand, and featured footage of Chinese members of the public. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was discriminatory towards Chinese people. The item was framed around the campaigner’s opinion that there was not a ‘level playing field’ between China and New Zealand....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that broadcasting his use of the word ‘prick’ breached standards. The comment was intended as self-deprecating humour, rather than being offensive or abusive, and it was relatively fleeting in the context of the item, which focused on a potential alliance between the Internet Party and the Mana Party. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] During One News, an item about the relationship between the Mana and Internet Parties included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. He was shown addressing the guests, saying: I’ll leave it up to you [the guests] to decide whether I’m a prick or not… [laughter from audience]… hopefully you’ll wait until after the speech....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under various standards about an answer during the DUKE Quiz which, in identifying an astronaut who ‘did not set foot on the moon’, stated ‘but then, did anyone really land on the moon? ’. The Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards about a Q + A interview with David Seymour on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged TVNZ’s reporting on the Bill, in this broadcast and in general, was biased; interviewer Jack Tame inaccurately claimed the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a partnership and erroneously cited the ‘Fleming version’ of the Treaty; and it was unfair to ‘only present one side of an argument’. The Authority found the balance standard does not apply to concerns of bias, and the audience was likely to be aware of significant perspectives on the Bill from this broadcast and other media coverage. It also found it was not misleading to suggest the Treaty/Te Tiriti is a partnership or cite the official English text of the Treaty. The fairness standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about offensive language on My Kitchen Rules. The Authority found three instances of language across a 90-minute programme was not outside the expectations of the programme’s M-L classification (M – suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over; L – language may offend); the classification and onscreen warning provided sufficient information to make an informed viewing decision or to exercise discretion; and the broadcast would not cause widespread undue offence in the context. For the same reasons, the Authority was satisfied the broadcaster took adequate steps and provided sufficient reliable information to ensure children could be protected from potentially unsuitable content.   Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that allowing an interviewee to wear what appeared to be a keffiyeh during an interview about the government’s introduction of new ‘move-on’ orders breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority found broadcasting the interviewee wearing this garment would not have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or have had the effect of encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, Jewish people. It noted, if the garment was in fact a keffiyeh, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the language used in a post-match interview on 1 News. The Southland Rugby captain used the phrase ‘shove it up their arse’ in response to a question on what he would say to ‘the detractors’. The Authority found this was low-level coarse language, within audience expectations, and recognised the value of allowing interviewees to express themselves in their own words. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

SummaryTwo consecutive episodes of Shortland Street contained a story-line about a nine-year-old boy, previously diagnosed with leukaemia, suffering a relapse and needing further medical treatment. His "mother" was shown receiving medical advice that his chances of survival with a bone marrow transplant were about one in ten. In the next episode, the child was shown bleeding profusely from mouth and nose, because his blood was not clotting properly. The episodes were broadcast on TV2 on 29 and 30 April 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. L D Percy complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the portrayals had a frightening impact on family and child viewers, particularly children who had returned to normal lives after receiving treatment for leukaemia. The depictions should only have been shown in an AO-rated programme, if at all, L D Percy wrote....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-083 Dated the 30th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER LORD of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 50/95 Dated the 15th day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIFF TURNER of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-001 Dated the 23rd day January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-038 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D THOMPSON of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Your House Killing You? – featured family in Queensland – father had used a substantial amount of timber treated with Copper Chrome Arsenate (CCA) for landscaping and decking – programme stated that exposure to the chemicals in CCA-treated timber could cause serious health effects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts by relying on scientific experts – mostly expert opinion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Is Your House Killing You? was broadcast on TV One at 8pm on Friday 11 December 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported allegations that during his time as a teacher, Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope was “sleazy” and made female students stand outside in their nighties as punishment at a school camp – included comments from Mr Benson-Pope – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue of public importance whether Mr Benson-Pope had acted inappropriately towards female students during his time as a teacher – significant perspectives were aired during period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies or misleading impressions – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – door-stepping interview not unfair – reporter entitled to approach Cabinet Minister – overall Mr Benson-Pope treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about large-scale animal neglect on a farm owned by one of New Zealand’s largest dairy producers – included footage of the complainant – allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled into believing the complainant was involved with animal cruelty on the farm – item accurate on material points of fact – majority – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – parts of the item borderline, but fair overall – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – complainant’s behaviour contributed to the way in which she was portrayed – majority – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....