Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a protest organised by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which carried a petition in the name of a deceased child, demanding changes to the rules around plea bargaining. The reporter stated, ‘the protestors chose disgraced ex-MP David Garrett to deliver that message to MPs. . . Garrett resigned from Parliament six years ago for stealing the identity of a dead infant. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold Mr Garrett’s complaint that this statement was misleading, as it implied the incident being referred to occurred six years ago, as well as being unbalanced and unfair to him. The Authority found the comment was not misleading, but emphasised that Mr Garrett’s resignation occurred six years ago, which was correct....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Step Dave, broadcast during The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, showed two female characters kissing and brief sexual innuendo. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that it was inappropriate to screen such an ‘overtly sexual’ promo during a children’s movie. The promo included low-level sexual innuendo which was unlikely to be understood by younger viewers, and unlikely to disturb or offend most viewers in the context of the PGR host programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Step Dave, broadcast during The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, showed two female characters kissing. One of the women said, referring to the two of them and the other woman’s boyfriend, ‘I think the three of us could have fun’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A short news item during Breakfast reported that the body of a German hostage, who had been beheaded by militants in the Philippines, had been recovered. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item depicted a ‘severed head’, which was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast, especially during a time when children were likely to be watching television. In the context of a very brief news report, the item would not have exceeded audience expectations and would not have unduly offended or disturbed viewers. The content shown was not graphic or at a level which required a warning to be given, and the story carried public interest....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-063:Wilcox-Clarke and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-063 PDF278. 23 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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Renters – item showing dispute between tenant and rental agent – allegedly in breach of privacy, also unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair – not upheld. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Renters on TV2 at 8pm on 17 February 2005 showed an altercation between a tenant and a rental agent. The tenant argued with the agent about a sign in the downstairs window which had led to prospective tenants pestering him in the upstairs flat....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSunday – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin charged with murder of terminally ill mother – some other views advanced – unbalanced ComplaintHolmes – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin – no other views advanced – unbalanced FindingsSunday – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item not a debate about euthanasia and included range of personal stories – not unbalanced – no uphold FindingsHolmes – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item involved interview with current newsmaker – her views about euthanasia balanced by other items during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary – Sunday [1] Euthanasia was the subject of an item on Sunday broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 March 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tudors – contained brief flashes of two characters having sex – allegedly subliminal messaging in breach of programme information standard Findings Standard 8 (programme information) – flashes did not constitute subliminal perception – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Tudors, a drama series about the reign and marriages of King Henry VIII, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 13 July 2008. In one scene, the King and Ann Boleyn danced together. As they danced, five brief and separate shots of the couple having sex were shown. When the dance ended, a sex scene followed, during which Ann slapped the King’s face and scratched his back drawing blood. She then revealed to the King her desire for his ex-wife and first child to be killed....

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....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast- host read out viewer feedback that contained joke referring to "Jesus Christ" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and children's interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – "Jesus Christ" used to covey exclamation of light-hearted surprise – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration of Christian people – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children's interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast was broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 23 March 2010. During the viewer feedback segment at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with female porn star about her thoughts on feminism and sexuality – included footage of porn star wearing lingerie and clips from her pornographic movies – broadcaster upheld complaint under good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken – Standards 1 (good taste and decency) and 9 (children’s interests) – serious breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – costs to the Crown of $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 11 August 2010, a reporter interviewed a female porn star, Nina Hartley, about her life and thoughts on feminism and sexuality....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Bootylicious – PGR promo – broadcast during One News between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm – crass – objectified women’s bodies – timing of promo unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – promo for programme on recent fashion fad – did not threaten current norms of decency and taste – not upheld Standard 7 (appropriate classification) – promo classified “PGR News” – PGR appropriate classification – not upheld Standard 7 (compliance with classification band) and Guideline 7b – One News (although itself unclassified) is in G time-band – PGR promo did not comply with classification band – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster considered children’s interests in rating promo PGR – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about NZ Army engineers in Iraq – reference to an article written by the complainant and published in the “Sunday Star-Times” – item’s focus was engineers’ reaction to the article’s claims that their achievements had been exaggerated – complainant alleged that item unfairly represented article, and was inaccurate and unbalancedFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item’s focus was reporting reaction to the article’s claims of exaggerating the achievements of engineers and did not require further balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurately reported that newspaper article said that the engineers were exaggerating their achievements – not otherwise inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – article ambiguous in parts – unfair to complainant to misreport the exaggeration claims as being made by the engineers – not otherwise unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item parodied “naked” news programmes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sequence unnecessarily lengthy – gratuitously explicit – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Eating Media Lunch is a series that lampoons aspects of the media both in New Zealand and overseas. The use of semi-naked news presenters in some countries was featured in the item broadcast on TV2 starting at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 15 November 2005. [2] The item presented the “Fuck News” which was said to originate in France. The item showed two partly dressed presenters who seemed to be having sexual intercourse while reading the news....

ComplaintDrama Priest – depiction of homosexual sexual activity – incest – blasphemy – offensive behaviour – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – programme started at 9. 10pm – warnings – no explicit sexual behaviour – no breach This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A British drama entitled Priest was broadcast on TV One at 9. 10pm on 11 November 2000. It highlighted the inner conflict experienced by a priest as he tried to reconcile the contradictory demands of his faith and his homosexuality. Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that scenes which depicted homosexual sexual activity were offensive and breached broadcasting standards. The film also contained incest and blasphemy themes, he noted, which he also found offensive....