Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Winston Peters and NZ First had been cleared by the Electoral Commission following allegations they had failed to declare donations – also reported that ACT Leader Rodney Hide had been found by the Commission to have broken the electoral rules by failing to declare rent-free office space – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item reported Electoral Commission’s findings – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – previous media coverage meant most viewers would have known about the $80,000 donation – broadcaster entitled to make editorial decision to focus on that aspect of the Commission’s decision – contrast between decisions about NZ First and ACT was overstated but Rodney Hide’s comments adequately explained the situation – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on “skimming” scheme in which accused allegedly “fleeced money from customers who used eftpos machines inside at least one Auckland business” – referred to and showed footage of the “Brooklyn Bar” in Auckland where, according to one customer, he had his card “skimmed” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item wrongly identified the Brooklyn Bar as having been targeted by the fraud – Brooklyn Bar was singled out and was the only business identified, which was unfair and created the impression the business was unsafe – reporter should have obtained verification from the complainant who owns the bar – complainant not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and correct information – complainant and his business treated unfairly – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-046–051:Whyte and 5 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-046–051 PDF1. 94 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-082:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-082 PDF1. 41 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-140:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-140 PDF428. 68 KB...

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. 1993-044:Hansen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-044 PDF347. 71 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 110/95 Dated the 26th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured the story of a man who, due to delays in having minor surgery for a skin cancer cyst, suffered severe health problems. The man said that ‘[The cyst] went from less than a centimetre to 35 centimetres’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the description of the cyst as ‘35 centimetres’ was inaccurate. The exact measurement was not a material point of fact in the item, and it was clearly the man’s own recollection of his experience. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured the story of a man who, due to delays in having minor surgery for a skin cancer cyst, had his eye and part of his face removed and was given a terminal diagnosis....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-014 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CENTRE FOR PSYCHO- SOCIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT in Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Paramedics, which twice played footage of a young man suffering an allergic reaction exclaiming ‘Fuck, I can’t breathe’, with the audio censored so the word was partially silenced, and the subtitles uncensored. The episode aired during an M classification time band, at 7. 30pm, and was preceded by a warning which stated ‘This programme is rated M. It contains coarse language. ’ The ‘ML’ rating was also broadcast after each advertisement break, with the ‘L’ advisory symbol indicating ‘language may offend’. In the context, the language used would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress, and was not beyond what viewers would have reasonably expected from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Vote 2014 which covered the results of the 2014 general election, used the terms 'jeez', 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus' as exclamations. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of these terms was offensive and inappropriate. The Authority has consistently recognised that the colloquial use of variations of 'Jesus' as an exclamation to express irritation, dismay or surprise is increasingly common and widely accepted. The use of the words in this context, during live coverage of an important political event, did not threaten standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During Vote 2014, comprising five hours of live coverage of the results of the 2014 general election, one of the hosts used the terms 'jeez' and 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus'....

Mary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and stood aside from this decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-029:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-029 PDF815. 18 KB...

Summary "Role Model", a music video for a song by Eminem was screened on Video Hits – New Releases, a music video programme. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 11. 00am on 30 October 1999. Ms Watkins complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the Video Hits – New Releases programme during which the "Role Model" video screened was incorrectly classified PGR, as it contained language and imagery which was potentially harmful to younger viewers. In its response to the complaint, TVNZ wrote that it believed it had properly classified the programme PGR. In its view, it would be "absurd" to restrict such music video shows to AO audiences because the age group attracted to this sort of music started "a number of years earlier than 18". TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....