Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-088 Dated the 6th day of August 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE REV CANON GERALD HADLOW of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Yo-Kai Watch was in breach of the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. It found that, while the episode contained negative stereotypes that may not be appropriate for children, and which some parents or caregivers may not approve of, the adult themes and sexual innuendos within the episode were not likely to be understood by child viewers, and the potential harm did not reach the level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

ComplaintLate Edition – item on plethora of cancer scares – insufficient attention given to the need to avoid the avoidable – unbalanced FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – focus on cancer scares – balancing comment – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The seemingly endless number of cancer scares, and the wide range of products and behaviours linked to cancer, were considered in a relatively brief news item broadcast on Late Edition on TV One at 10. 35pm on 14 August 2001. [2] R F James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced as it gave no recognition to the basic medical precept that if a risk is avoidable, it should be avoided. When TVNZ did not respond to the complaint, Mr James referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News At 4. 30 – report on a suicide bombing in Sri Lanka – showed footage of moments before and after the explosion – allegedly in breach of children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 9 (children's interests) and Standard 10 (violence) – no graphic material – appropriate warning given – complainant mistaken about content of item – broadcaster sufficiently considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News At 4. 30, broadcast on TV One at 4. 30pm on Wednesday 11 March 2009, reported that "dramatic pictures have emerged showing the moments just before a deadly suicide bombing attack on Muslims in Sri Lanka". The presenter warned viewers that "you may find the pictures disturbing"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – discussion about proposed changes to adoption laws to allow homosexual couples to adopt – host said he was “iffy” about the changes and that homosexuality was “unnatural” – co-host and some viewers disagreed with his views – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comments were provocative but encouraged debate – host’s views were countered by co-host and viewer feedback – tone was not sufficiently malicious to encourage discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

Summary The film "Striptease" which starred Demi Moore and Burt Reynolds was screened at 8. 30pm on TV2 on 31 January 1999. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film, which depicted a woman with naked breasts during a striptease act, was offensive and unsuitable for younger viewers. He also claimed that the film was of no social or educational value. TVNZ advised Mr Harang that it did not consider that the broadcast had breached norms of decency and taste. The broadcaster also maintained that it had been mindful of the effect of the programme on children because it had assigned the film an AO classification and had preceded its broadcast with an explicit warning. The film, it said, had screened after the established 8. 30pm watershed. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Harang referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

SummaryAn episode of Hollywood Sex was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 26 August 1999. This two-part programme looks at some of the more unusual activities which take place in Hollywood’s sex industry. Mr Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contravened standards of decency, and that young people could watch and be influenced by "the very bad aspects of the programme". Mr and Ms Curtis complained that the programme was "the most disgustingly blatant sexual perversion [they had] ever had the misfortune to see", and that the programme was unsuitable for screening at that hour because of the likelihood of children watching. In its responses to the complaints, TVNZ said that it did not consider that it had breached any broadcasting standard. It noted that the programme was broadcast at 9. 30pm, carried an AO certificate, and was preceded by a warning....

During a segment of Seven Sharp, hosts Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells competed in a ‘Steak Off’ to see who could barbecue the best steak. During the competition, Wells wore an apron with an image of a naked man’s torso on the front, with the genitals on the apron pixelated throughout the segment. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, finding it unlikely, in the context, to have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the Government’s response to protests about seismic surveying, or ‘blasting’, in New Zealand waters. The item featured an interview with a representative of Greenpeace, who said that the Government could act now to stop seismic blasting, as the practice was harmful and could ‘interfere with [whales’ and dolphins’] communication and breeding… deafen them… and separate calves from their mothers’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was inaccurate and unbalanced because it presented Greenpeace’s views as fact....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item, reporting on the sustainability implications of the Government’s programme providing free period products to schools, breached the offensive and disturbing content broadcasting standard. The broadcast outlined types of sustainable period products and included a demonstration on how to wash period underwear, using red-tinted liquid. The Authority found the content was within audience expectations of the item, and news programming more generally, and unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-012:Tregurtha and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-012 PDF394. 96 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-058:Shepherd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-058 PDF323. 74 KB...

Complaint One News – interview with Chief Ombudsman about tax-payer funded sex-change operation where health bureaucracy acted unfairly – incorrect impression portrayed of Ombudsman’s decision, contrary to agreement before interview – field tape sought to assist preparation of complaint OrderOrder made to supply tape to Authority – section 12 Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION The Background An item on One News on 23 November 2000 reported on the case of Joanne Procter who was seeking a taxpayer-funded sex change operation. Her application had been approved by doctors at Waikato Hospital, but that decision had been overruled by the Health Funding Authority. She had taken her case to the Ombudsman, and the Chief Ombudsman ruled that she had been treated unfairly by the health bureaucracy. A brief comment from the Chief Ombudsman was included in the item....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....