Search Rapua

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – reality programme in which contestants take part in repellent or frightening activities – contestants were required to tread in a vat containing live earthworms and were required to drink worm “juice” – allegedly offensive and not in interests of childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Guideline 9e – earthworms not animals under Guideline 9e – S1930 rating imposed by broadcaster indicated that children’s interests were acknowledged – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factor was screened at 7. 30pm on TV2 on 2 March 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factor as a “reality” programme in which the contestants are challenged to take part in repellent and frightening activities....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item profiled the complainant, Donald McDonald – introduction referred to some of his previous complaints including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not suggest that all or most of his complaints were unfounded but that Mr McDonald complained “too often about too little” – provided context to complaints and complainant put forward his own perspective – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of fairness This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – item reported survey of teenagers’ attitudes – suggested amongst other things trend to drugs away from alcohol and disrespect for New Zealand Flag and Anthem – inaccurate – biased FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for principles of law – no uphold Standard G6 – not unfair or unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The findings of a survey of teenagers were reported in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 29 October 2001. Among the findings were changes in attitudes to drugs, the National Anthem and the New Zealand Flag. [2] Kenneth Lord complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the findings were biased and amounted to propaganda....

ComplaintHolmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate – unbalanced – unfair to leader of opposition FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – live debate – robust discussion – similar allocation of time to present views – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A Holmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate programme was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 22 July 2002. It featured Ms Helen Clark and Mr Bill English, the leaders of the two main political parties. It was a general election programme, broadcast live with a studio audience, and the leaders were questioned on their party policies. [2] Mr Hugh Webb complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced and that Mr English was treated unfairly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Castle promo – contained comments, “a big time slugger gets whacked”, and “someone used his head for batting practice” – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – promo contained references to violence but no visual depictions of violence – would not have disturbed children – content was correctly classified PGR – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Castle, a criminal drama in which the murder of a baseball player was being investigated, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 10pm on 5 January 2011, during Masterchef UK, which was rated PGR. A voiceover said, “a big time slugger gets whacked”, and a character in the programme was shown commenting, “someone used his head for batting practice”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-015 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE NEW ZEALAND PURE WATER ASSOCIATION Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item – street march through Auckland – topless protester shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 5 March 2005 showed a street march through Auckland that day in support of “family values”. A topless woman was among those shown protesting against the views expressed by the marchers. Complaint [2] Luke McKoy complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that showing a topless woman did not observe standards of good taste and decency....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – 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, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about ongoing Family Court proceedings concerning custody of a child – father interviewed anonymously and gave details of evidence and proceedings – brief visuals of baby – mother believed that as baby was identifiable, she was also identifiable – personal details broadcast about her – some allegedly inaccurate – child shown without mother’s permission – alleged breach of privacy of mother and baby – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – referral outside statutory time limit – s....

ComplaintMessiah 2: Vengeance is Mine – promo – programme to be broadcast at 8. 30pm – promo screened during Holmes before 7. 30pm – graphic – inappropriate time slot FindingsStandard 7 – classification appropriate – no uphold Standard 10 – appropriate discretion exercised regarding violence – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Messiah 2: Vengeance is Mine was broadcast on TV One at 7. 20pm on Friday 11 July 2003 during Holmes. The programme Messiah 2, rated AO, was to be screened at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 July. [2] Annette Ward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the graphic and disturbing promo had been broadcast at an inappropriate time. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the promo contained no explicit violence and did not include the scenes which had justified the film’s AO rating....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on ONE News reported on concerns around a government-funded survey of health professionals and their views on voluntary euthanasia. It said that the survey was run by researchers who support assisted dying, and that it was alleged that the research was biased and flawed. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the researchers involved and to the university through which the research was run, as well as inaccurate and unbalanced. Comment was sought from the university and the researchers, whose position was presented in the university’s response and fairly reported in the item....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for an episode of the comedy-drama series Lucifer was broadcast during Sunday. In the promo, the main character, Lucifer, was shown impersonating a priest and hearing a woman’s confession. Lucifer said to the woman, ‘Your penance: ten Bloody Marys and a good shag’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the main character’s impersonation of a priest was inappropriate, offensive and denigrated Catholics and Christians. The Authority acknowledged that the promo would have been upsetting to some viewers who hold certain beliefs, but found in the context of the broadcast the promo did not reach the threshold for finding a breach of standards. The promo reflected the content of the fictional programme promoted, and was intended to be humorous and light-hearted. It contained only low-level sexual innuendo....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on John Key’s resignation and the legacy he would leave behind after his term as Prime Minister. The item covered a number of significant events during Mr Key’s time in office, including his involvement in deploying troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes, and the flag referendum (among others). The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was misleading and unfair in describing Mr Key’s legacy. The selection of events to include in, and the overall tone of, the item were matters of editorial discretion open to the broadcaster. In the context of a brief summary of highlights from Mr Key’s career, the audience would not have expected an in-depth discussion or analysis of the events discussed....

Chair Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Following the issue of this decision, the Authority received new information from a third party refuting certain allegations made by the complainant about, and descriptions of, the dairy farm referred to in the decision owned by 'B'. The Authority wishes to note that the descriptions of the farm owned by B used in this decision have been disputed. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Sunday, titled ‘The Price of Milk’, followed a reporter as he visited two dairy farms in the Hauraki Plains. The reporter spent time with two farmers, A and B, to hear their perspectives on their work and the issues facing the industry....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

 The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News segment that discussed allegations and criticisms about the operations of the Tongan Health Society. The segment featured interviews with former employees and Board members who criticised the management of the Society, its CEO Dr Glenn Doherty, and called for an independent review of the Society. The Authority found that the requirements of the fairness and balance standards were met as TVNZ had taken reasonable steps to seek, and then adequately presented, the Society’s point of view on the issues raised in the programme. The Authority found the disclosure of the CEO’s request for a bonus and extracts from correspondence between the CEO and Board relating to this amounted to a breach of privacy, but determined that the defence of public interest applied on this occasion. Not Upheld: Balance Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....