Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Summary Good Morning referred to the Alliance Party’s proposal to introduce higher taxes. The presenter asked "Should the rich be taxed more? ", and invited viewers to telephone or fax their responses for inclusion in the programme’s Voteline. Responses were provided to viewers in a graph format, and through the presenter’s comments during the course of the programme, which was broadcast on TV One on 29 September 1999, from 10. 00–12. 00 noon. Mr Wakeman complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the programme’s focus on tax rates was not balanced. He had attempted to participate in the poll, he said, and the broadcaster had advised it would contact him for his view but had failed to do so. He questioned the number of responses received, and also the presenter’s comment at one particular time that the poll was showing a lack of support for tax increases....

ComplaintStrippers – sensationalist – voyeuristic – offensive – unsuitable for children and young teenagers FindingsStandard 1, Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9, Guideline 9a – not children’s normal viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Strippers is a British documentary series which followed a small group of women for three months and examined female striptease. One episode was broadcast at 9. 30pm on TV2 on 10 September 2002. [2] Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained many strip scenes and breached the standard relating to the observance of good taste and decency. The warning which preceded the broadcast, he said, would not stop children and young teenagers watching the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

ComplaintHolmes – apology from Mr Holmes for comments he made about UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Newstalk ZB – apology said to be unbalanced, inaccurate and breached requirements for law and order Findings Standard 2 – not applicable – decline to determine Standard 4 – personal statement – balance not an issue – decline to determine Standard 5 – no inaccuracy – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Paul Holmes, the host of Holmes broadcast on TV One on weekdays at 7. 00pm, made a personal statement on Holmes on 29 September 2003 about some comments he had made on Newstalk ZB. Among some other comments made on Newstalk ZB, he had described the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a “cheeky darkie”. His comments had received extensive media coverage....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-014 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANNE DINGWALL of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe Taranaki rugby team’s successful defence of the Ranfurly Shield against North Harbour that day was reported on One Network News broadcast between 6. 00–6. 30pm on 31 August 1996. The coverage included shots of the successful team in its changing room after the match. On GALA’s behalf, Mr Turner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the shots from the changing room included liquor advertising signage. As such signage breached the NZ Sports Assembly Voluntary Sports Code, he maintained that it contravened the Programme Standards. While accepting that the Voluntary Sports Code might have been breached, TVNZ said it had been unaware of the signage until it was filming in the changing room. It maintained that it had minimised coverage of the liquor signage and declined to uphold the complaint....

The Authority has issued a split decision in relation to a Sunday item which reported on a ‘silicosis epidemic’ in Australia’s engineered stone workforce and raised questions about New Zealand’s response to the same concerns, suggesting New Zealand is failing to address its own ‘looming health crisis’. The complaint alleged the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards as it misled the audience to believe the industry in New Zealand had the same regulatory failings as Australia, and was unbalanced as it omitted other perspectives on the New Zealand situation (for example, from the industry). The Authority did not uphold the accuracy complaint, finding it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on the selected interviewee as a local authoritative source and spokesperson on this issue....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 69/95 Decision No: 70/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY of Auckland and PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-018 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUE WHITE of Lake Hawea Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryAn item on One Network News on 31 March 1998 reported the findings of the Nursing Council following its investigation into a midwife’s management of the delivery of a baby who subsequently died. The item reported six adverse findings which the council had allegedly made on the midwife’s care and treatment. Jean O’Neil, the midwife referred to, complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the report was inaccurate and unfair because it failed to acknowledge that some of the charges were not upheld, and it portrayed her as guilty of charges on which she had been exonerated. TVNZ responded that the report was wrong on two matters of fact. It upheld the complaint and offered an on-air apology on One Network News. TVNZ wrote that it deplored the sloppy and careless reporting, and the reporter had been made aware of his failings....

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported that Plunketline telephone service to be replaced by broader Healthline service – Minister of Health questioned on whether her support for Healthline was consistent with election pledge in 1999 to support Plunketline – allegedly unbalanced and interview edited unfairly Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item omitted Minister’s explanation for the change of her political point of view – unbalanced – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item omitted Minister’s comment on central issue – unfair – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The replacement of Plunketline, a telephone service for caregivers, with a broader Healthline telephone service was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One on 7 July 2004....

ComplaintOne News – comment in both headlines and item – kick up the arse – political meeting – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – no tape of headlines – decline to determine; comment in item acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The contest for the presidency of the National Party was dealt with in an item on One News broadcast at 6. 00pm on 6 May 2001. The item reported on the voting at a regional conference, with one delegate saying that "the party needs a good kick up the arse". The remark was also included in the opening headlines for One News. Don Campbell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the opening headline and the item containing that expression failed to meet standards of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on Air Force helicopter crash on ANZAC Day – first reporter reported from the site of the crash – second part of the item showed photographs of the men who died, parts of their Facebook pages and past interviews with them – showed footage of the sole survivor being taken to an ambulance on a stretcher – item included comment from head of the Air Force – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard does not apply to deceased individuals – servicemen’s family members not identified – no private facts disclosed about surviving serviceman – footage of survivor not obtained by prying – broadcaster exercised adequate care and sensitivity – information about the crash and the survivor of legitimate public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – 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 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....