Search Rapua

SummaryThe "Bluffer’s Guide" is a regular feature of Ansett Time of Your Life. In the programme broadcast on TV3 on 26 May 1998 at 8. 00pm, it focused on cigar smoking. Mr Pester of Pahiatua complained through the Broadcasting Standards Authority to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the programme glorified cigar smoking in a manner which would be attractive to young people. He argued that TV3 had employed a deceptive programme practice because it encouraged young people to smoke cigars, and that it had failed to be mindful of the effect of the programme on children. In addition, he contended that it had contravened the Smokefree Environments Act 1990. TV3 responded that the programme, while rated G, was aimed at a mature audience. It did not believe that the segment would have appealed to children, and noted that the host did not reinforce the behaviour by smoking herself....

SummaryThe alarm shown by two young boys in a bath when dirty water suddenly bubbled up through the plug hole was featured in an item on The Great Kiwi Video Show shown on TV2 at 6. 30pm on 21 March 1999. When one of the boys stood up, a colourful programme logo was superimposed over his genital area. Mr Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the practice of masking innocent nudity. Such masking, he continued, suggested that genitalia were unacceptable and dirty. Further, he wrote, research indicated that men who were not socially comfortable with their bodies could lack self-esteem, and that could lead to anti-social behaviour. He listed a number of broadcasting standards which he considered the broadcast had contravened....

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – programme contained teaser for item in upcoming episode – teaser about a teenage boy who had committed suicide and the events leading up to his death involving two girls – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – girls not identifiable beyond those who already knew of the events – teaser did not draw any conclusions about their motives or character – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Wednesday 17 February 2010. At the end of the programme, a teaser was shown for an upcoming item that was going to be screened in the following week’s episode....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Ms Loates declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint 20/20 – documentary – mental health outpatient– inaccuracies – lacked balance – discrimination against mental health patients – verbal agreement about interview content Findings(1) Standard G1 – inaccuracies not proven – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided where required through interview with mental health provider – no further imbalance proven – mentally ill not portrayed as inferior – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 20/20 called "Flatmate Wanted" was broadcast on TV3 on 12 September 1999, from 7. 30pm. The item concerned the deaths of Lachlan Jones and Malcolm Beggs and was critical of the mental health system, which it implicated in the deaths....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...

ComplaintMana News – item about funding of Mana Maori Media by Te Mangai Paho – commented on complainants’ questions in Parliament about funding – unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair – Principles 4, 6 and 7 – RNZ upheld the complaint as inaccurate and a breach of Principle 6 – made written apology – action taken insufficient – complainants seek broadcast of correction and apology FindingsAction taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Questions in Parliament from the complainants about the funding of Mana Maori Media Ltd by Te Mangai Paho were dealt with in an item on Mana News broadcast on National Radio between 5. 00–6. 00pm on Friday 2 May 2003. [2] Members of Parliament, Katherine Rich and Rodney Hide, complained to Radio New Zealand, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced, inaccurate and denigrated them....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold complaints that three broadcasts showing fishing and hunting were barbaric and cruel. As the Authority has noted in previous decisions on similar complaints from the complainant, killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life and her concerns are based primarily on personal lifestyle preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about three episodes of fishing and hunting programmes. In general, her complaints were that fishing and hunting are barbaric and cruel. More specifically, she objected to the practices of catch-and-release fishing, live baiting and boar hunting. [2] The issue is whether the broadcasts breached any of the standards set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989RNZ News – item reported on French and Greek elections – it was reported that “the polls have opened in Greece for parliamentary elections seen as a referendum on the country’s harsh austerity measures” – use of the word “harsh” allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsJurisdictional matter – on balance, complainant was entitled to refer his complaint on the basis he did not receive the broadcaster’s decision – Authority has jurisdiction to accept complaint Standard 4 (controversial issues) – use of the word “harsh” did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “harsh” was not a material point of fact and would not have misled viewers – “harsh” not pejorative in this context but intended to mean strict or stringent – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-027–028:Kyrke-Smith Family and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-027, 1993-028717. 05 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-135–137:Long, Stanley and Singe and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-135, 1993-136, 1993-137 PDF1. 87 MB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub explored concerns of members of the public and the Christchurch City Council regarding potential water contamination from a bore drilled by Cloud Ocean Water and pending judicial review action taken against Environment Canterbury (ECan) over their resource consent processes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair to Cloud Ocean Water. The Authority found that Cloud Ocean Water’s responses to questions from Newshub prior to the broadcast were fairly reflected in the item, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled regarding the nature of Cloud Ocean Water’s involvement in the resource consent process or the judicial review....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on Newshub Live at 6pm breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards. The segment referred to two recent kidnapping attempts, and asked for witnesses to come forward to help identify the alleged perpetrator. During the segment, a video was shown of the alleged perpetrator, who was described as ‘possibly Indian’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under any of the nominated standards, finding the broadcast was a straightforward news item; the language used was not offensive or disturbing; did not contain malice or nastiness; and was unlikely to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of a section of the community. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

Complaint Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club – clips of violent behaviour – breach of good taste – threatened standards of law and order – racist – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children – excessive violence – Prime upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspects upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings (1) action taken on Standards 2, 7 and 10 – action taken insufficient – uphold(2) Standard 1 – context – upholdStandard 6 – not unfair to South American Indians – no upholdStandard 9 – unsuitable for child viewers – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 October 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....