Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-126:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-126 PDF420. 11 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-023:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-023 PDF433. 55 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-085:National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-085 PDF502. 9 KB...

Summary An item broadcast on One Network News between 6. 00–7. 00 pm on TV One on 12 March 1998 reported on the Auckland trial of Malcolm Rewa who had been charged with murder, and several counts of sexual violation. The item referred to evidence given that day by a witness who had been raped by Rewa ten years previously. Footage showed street signs and the streets where the witness had lived and was attacked, and the gang safe house where she was taken after the attack. The report described her as the girlfriend of a gang member, and used her first name. A complaint was made to the TVNZ newsroom by a family member shortly after. The report was repeated unchanged during Tonight, broadcast at 9. 30 pm the same night....

SummaryThe involvement of the Prime Minister’s staff with Timberlands was the subject of news items on One Network News broadcast on 17, 18 and 19 August 1999 beginning at 6. 00pm, an item on Breakfast on 18 August beginning at 7. 00am, and an item on Holmes on 18 August beginning at 7. 00pm. It was reported that although Mrs Shipley had denied such involvement with the company after she became Prime Minister, papers released that day indicated otherwise. Hon David Carter, Associate Minister of Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the 18 August report was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. He pointed out first that Mrs Shipley had not denied that her staff had been involved with Timberlands since she had become Prime Minister....

ComplaintWhat Now? PM – decriminalisation of cannabis – information intended for children – pictures of a joint being rolled – unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard G12 – visuals not consistent with voiceover commentary – unsuitable for children – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The decriminalisation of cannabis was the subject of an item on What Now? PM broadcast on TV2 on 13 July 2000 at about 5. 00pm. Footage accompanying the item showed a cannabis joint being rolled, and two people sharing a joint. Sharon Wilton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the visual content was unsuitable for inclusion in a programme intended for children. TVNZ explained that the purpose of the item was to inform children of the legislative moves to decriminalise cannabis and the position of MP Nandor Tanczos....

ComplaintWeddings: Happily Ever After? – update on some couples who appeared in Weddings – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – consent form for footage from Weddings – subsequent information freely given – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Weddings: Happily Ever After? was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2001. The programme reported on the state of the relationships of some of the couples who had appeared on previous episodes of Weddings. [2] Kylie and Simon Bernie, one of the couples, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme had breached standards relating to privacy. Mr and Mrs Bernie maintained that they had not consented to the inclusion of information about them or their baby daughter in the programme....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-071 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Storylines which ran through five episodes of Shortland Street broadcast at 7. 00pm during the week 31 August to 4 September 1998, concerned the intimate relationships of three sets of characters. The first storyline featured the relationship between a 17 year old female and a 28 old male, the second portrayed a male character who was painting a nude portrait of his partner, and the third concerned a male character who manipulated a young woman with whom he wished to have sex. Ms Barker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the storylines were offensive because they portrayed sex outside marriage as acceptable, and failed to examine the damaging consequences of such behaviour. She considered that the programmes’ PGR classification and 7. 00pm timeslot were inappropriate, as many younger children could still be viewing at that time....

Summary A dispute between neighbours was put to the audience of You be the Judge for resolution in the episode broadcast on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The item included footage, filmed by the aggrieved neighbour, of two people leaving his neighbour’s home at 4. 31am. He described such visitors to his neighbour in general terms as her "zombie mates. " C, one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that he and his wife considered that the broadcast had invaded their privacy. First, he argued, the complainant should never have filmed them, and secondly, the footage should never have been broadcast. He said they also objected to being described as "zombie mates"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a 10-year-old child who had taken his mother’s car for a joyride – child interviewed while sitting in the driver’s seat – showed child sitting in the driver’s seat of the car alone and rolling down the driveway at his house – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests Findings Standards 2 (law and order) and 9 (children’s interests) – item did not encourage adult target audience to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise illegal behaviour – clearly illustrated the boy’s actions were dangerous and illegal – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News ­– item on Big Wednesday Lotto draw – presenter stated that ticket holders had a one in 2. 7 million chance of winning – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item technically inaccurate – upholding the complaint would place an unjustified limitation on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item, broadcast at 6pm on Wednesday 10 June 2009, reported on a Lotto “Big Wednesday” draw that had jackpotted to twenty million dollars. The presenter introduced the item by saying: In just over an hour, some lucky punter could be twenty million dollars richer in what would be the country’s largest ever Lotto win. Big Wednesday’s jackpotted to include twenty million dollars cash, there’s only a one in 2....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A repeat broadcast of an episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the surviving driver that the repeat broadcast, without his consent, breached his privacy. The complainant signed a consent form, and the timeline between the accident and the repeat broadcast more than four years later, in the absence of any further objections from him, suggested that he gave his consent freely, and not under duress. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The crash occurred on 4 December 2009, and the episode subject to complaint – a repeat broadcast – screened on 24 May 2014 on TV ONE....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported that an increasing number of beneficiaries were being banned from Work and Income offices due to heightened security as a result of the fatal shootings at a WINZ office in 2014. The reporter interviewed a beneficiary who said that this was ‘no surprise’ because dealing with WINZ is ‘frustrating’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments from the beneficiary were irresponsible and encouraged violence. The focus of the item was on security at WINZ offices and the beneficiary was relating his personal experience; the item did not advocate violence....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-061:McClure and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-061 PDF288. 36 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-006:Bertram and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-006 PDF223. 26 KB...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go was unfair to the fencing contractor investigated. The Authority found that the fencing contractor was not treated fairly, due to the way he was set-up to be interviewed (under the guise of calling him to a job) and because he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in the programme. The Authority also found that the inclusion of information about the contractor’s past which had a criminal element was unfair as it was not relevant to the issues being investigated in this item and contributed to an unfairly negative impression of him. The accuracy complaint was not upheld as the item did not mislead or present inaccurate information, and the balance standard did not apply as the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance....