Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Two and a Half Men – promo broadcast at 2. 10pm contained sexual innuendo and the word “penis” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo screened during chat show targeted at adults and in AO timeslot – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – host programme, while rated G, was not targeted at children and broadcast in AO time-band – sexual content was sufficiently inexplicit and promo light-hearted and humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – host programme targeted at adults and broadcast during AO timeslot – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintRacing – Live coverage of Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham – arch behind presenters bearing words Lion Brown – incidental liquor promotion – considerable liquor signage – saturation of liquor promotion FindingsStandard A1 – no saturation of liquor promotion – no uphold Standard A3 – repeated visuals of arch – incidental liquor promotion not minimised – uphold OrderCosts to Crown of $750 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Live coverage of the Lion Brown Wellington Cup at Trentham was shown on TV One between 5. 00–6. 00pm on 25 January 2003. The coverage included comments from the presenters when, on a number of occasions, there was an arch bearing the words "Lion Brown" in the background. [2] Cliff Turner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of the arch amounted to the incidental promotion of liquor....

ComplaintOne News – item reported Government to pay defence bill for depositions hearing of private prosecution of police officer charged with murder – featured as unusual event whereas complainant claimed that it was standard practice – not consistent with legal principles – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 2, 4, 5, and 6 – news selection issue – not broadcasting standards matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Government’s decision to pay the defence costs at the depositions hearing of the private prosecution of Constable Abbott for the murder of Stephen Wallace was reported as a "bolt from the blue" in an item on One News on Saturday 15 June 2002. One News is broadcast daily on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an interview with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Q & A was unbalanced. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply to the concerns raised, the broadcaster’s decision had adequately responded to the concerns and the complaint related to matters of editorial discretion and personal preference. The Authority considered, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. Declined to determine (section 11 (b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment made during live coverage of a Black Caps cricket match breached the discrimination and denigration standard for ridiculing mental health/illness – and, by extension, people with mental illness. Commentator Scotty Stevenson said, ‘Built on the site of a former asylum, Otago Boys’ High School. Having met some of the old boys, don't think much has changed. ’ The Authority recognised that while some may view the comment as insensitive and inappropriate, the comment did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. The broadcast was unlikely to encourage the different treatment of those with mental illness to their detriment, nor devalue their reputation. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-099 Decision No: 1996-100 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and IN THE MATTER of complaints by THE NATIONAL COLLECTIVE OF RAPE CRISIS AND RELATED GROUPS OF AOTEAROA INC. and RUBY WOODWARD of Wellington 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 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?...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 124/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE PAVAN FAMILY of Johnsonville Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

ComplaintStrassman – ventriloquist – offensive language – fuck – wank – blasphemyFindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – context relevant – no uphold Cross ReferenceDecision No: 2000-137 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ventriloquist in Strassman, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 18 July 2000 used the word "fuck" and its derivatives when in conversation with his puppet characters. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In particular he said he was offended by the use of the word "fuck", which he said was a macho term which unashamedly denigrated women and instilled an "antisocial and dangerous attitude towards women". As he had received no response from TVNZ, he referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host said that obese children “should be taken away from their parents and put in a car compactor” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the beginning of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 3 February 2009, the programme’s presenters outlined the upcoming items for the day. One host stated, “should obese children be taken away from their parents? That is what Australian experts are suggesting – well, some of them anyway. We’ll wade into the debate after 7”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-084 Dated the 30th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK PULLAR of Auckland TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 31/94 Dated the 26th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland 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 footage on a 1 News item of a person’s negative reaction after receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The Authority acknowledged the high public value and education in news reporting about COVID-19 testing and found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. The law and order, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Real Crime: The Investigator – programme analysed the conviction of a man for murdering his wife – disclosed the names and showed photographs of the man’s daughters – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – programme did not disclose any private facts – information already in the public realm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Real Crime: The Investigator was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 8 July 2009. The investigator, Bryan Bruce, took an in-depth look at the case of a man who was convicted of murdering his wife in 2001. [2] During the programme, the first names of the man’s daughters were disclosed and a photograph of the man and his two daughters was displayed by the investigator on his evidence board....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – message “Kill Yourself Now” flashed on the screen for a split second – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – action taken by the broadcaster sufficient – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – standard not applicable – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] During an episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 2 November 2007, the message “Kill Yourself Now” was displayed on the screen just before the programme’s opening credits....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a One News item "fundamentally misrepresented" the Electoral Finance Bill by saying, first, that "new rules for election spending will mean big donations to political parties' campaigns will no longer be kept secret", and second, that "other secret donors would also be outed – donations over $5000 would have to be declared”. The complainant said the Bill required no greater degree of disclosure of the amounts of donations and the identities of donors than the existing law. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the story was about third party activities at election time, rather than donations to political parties. As third parties would have to register with the Electoral Commission if they intended to spend more than $5,000 on an election campaign, their identity would no longer be secret....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....