Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Interlocutory applications for production of field tapes – documentary entitled Monster of Berhampore about alleged child abuse in Berhampore Children’s Home – complainant alleging programme unbalanced – seeking disclosure of additional material not broadcast by TVNZDecision on interlocutory applicationField tapes not required to determine relevant issues – applications declined – Authority will seek submissions on substantive issuesThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background[1] At 7:30 pm on 1 May 2005, during Sunday, Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast an item entitled The Monster of Berhampore. The subject of the item was Walter Lake, who during the 1950s and 1960s had run the Berhampore Children’s Home in Wellington. [2] The documentary interviewed a number of former residents of the home who alleged that Mr Lake had sexually abused them....

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on an Auckland homicide – showed victim’s wife and three teenage children being driven away in police car – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – footage of police car was taken in a public place – victim’s family likely vulnerable but disclosure of footage not highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 September 2008, it was reported that a man had been stabbed and killed in Auckland. In the following item, One News reported from the suburb in which the man lived and interviewed one of his work colleagues, a man who witnessed the incident, and a member of the Auckland Police....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – statement prior to commercial break referred to volcano eruption and tsunami threat – allegedly misleading and inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) and guideline 5b – statement would not have misled or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Prior to a commercial break during One News, beginning at 6pm on 2 March 2007, presenter Simon Dallow said: Just ahead this news hour, a volcano eruption sparks fears of tsunami. [2] Following the commercial break, One News reported that a volcanic eruption on the island of Stromboli, off the Sicilian coast, had “sparked a warning that it could trigger a tsunami similar to the one that caused widespread damage five years ago”....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed a five-week, outdoor ‘life skills’ camp held for high school students on Great Barrier Island. Footage of a sheep being restrained to be killed for food, the sheep’s dead body and blood, and the gutting of the sheep was shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the killing of the sheep was ‘brutal’ and unacceptable for broadcast. While the footage was graphic and would not have appealed to all viewers, it was adequately signposted during the item, which enabled viewers to exercise discretion and decide whether to continue watching. The actual killing of the sheep was not shown, and the footage appeared to show standard, accepted practices of killing animals for food in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad featured footage taken at a named international airport in New Zealand, during which a Ministry for Primary Industries detector dog found an apple in a couple’s bag. PN, a Quarantine Officer, was shown questioning the couple about the apple and issuing them with a fine. The faces of PN and the couple, and PN’s identity tag, were blurred and PN was not named. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment breached PN’s privacy. While it found that, despite the blurring, PN was identifiable in the broadcast, it did not consider that any private information was disclosed during the segment....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Breakfast, host Hayley Holt had a conversation with the 1 News US Correspondent about recent school protests in America seeking gun reform. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Ms Holt’s statement that ‘[w]e, I – here in New Zealand, we think they should ban all guns of course’ was unbalanced and likely to mislead viewers. The Authority found that Ms Holt’s statement was one of generalised opinion and analysis, not a statement of fact. The Authority also noted that this segment solely focused on gun control issues in the USA, not New Zealand, and in this context Ms Holt’s brief comment did not trigger the requirements of the balance standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy, BalanceIntroduction[1] During Breakfast, host Hayley Holt had a conversation with the 1 News US Correspondent about recent school protests in America seeking gun reform....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-034:Creighton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-034 PDF713. 18 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-026–027:New Zealand Business Roundtable and Treasury and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-026, 1990-027 PDF3. 73 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-021:Wislang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-021 PDF333. 3 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-070:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-070 PDF484. 44 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-101:McElroy and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-101 PDF468. 14 KB...

Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 15 December 1997 focussed on two teenage girls whose mother had died, owing about $2,000 to Adelphi Finance. The broadcast related how the girls’ father had moved in to care for them and how, shortly after, furniture in their house had been repossessed on behalf of that company. Adelphi Finance Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was factually inaccurate, distorted the actual events, was unbalanced and partial, and presented a misleading impression of both the complainant and the circumstances of the repossession. TVNZ responded that the complainant was given every opportunity to present its side and to have it included in the item. Further, it noted that a studio summation of the complainant’s case was included at the end of the broadcast....

SummaryAn item in an Assignment programme broadcast on TV One on 18 June 1998 commencing at 7. 30 pm depicted a public meeting of the Act Party in Tauranga. The reporter stated that Act staff had told the broadcaster after the meeting that supporters of the group, Voters’ Voice, had given each Act MP a copy of the recent speeches of Pauline Hansen. The Chairman of Voters’ Voice (Inc) claimed that the statement was a fabrication. Voters’ Voice took umbrage at the statement, he wrote, for the organisation was constitutionally bound to avoid party political opinion. Act officials could confirm no such event took place, he added. The broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, responded that its investigation revealed that the reporter’s statement was made to him by a senior Act representative in the presence of a witness....

Summary An episode of It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, based around a fictional troupe of British soldiers in Burma in World War II entertaining fellow soldiers on stage, included a number of "Indian" characters. The episode was broadcast on Prime TV on 2 May 1999 at 8. 05 pm. Mr Theodore complained to Prime Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the episode portrayed Indian people as inherently inferior, that a white actor wearing brown make-up to impersonate an "Indian look and accent" breached norms of decency and good taste, and that the broadcaster had failed to inform viewers of the accuracy of factual matters raised in the episode. Prime TV responded that the programme was not factual, and that within the context of its farcical approach it had not breached norms of taste or decency....