Search Rapua

Summary An American documentary entitled Scared Straight – 20 Years On was broadcast by TV3 on 12 July 1999 at 8. 30pm. It examined a rehabilitation programme for youthful offenders which was based on behaviour modification. The programme was trialled in the 1970s, and 20 years later some of those participants were asked about their experiences on the course and how they had lived their lives since then. James Whitham complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme condoned violence and encouraged intimidating and threatening behaviour. He contended that it had breached a number of broadcasting standards. TV3 responded by noting that the behaviour modification programme had been used successfully in America to help teenage offenders. In the context of an AO programme, which had been preceded by a verbal and written warning relating to language, TV3 maintained that no standards had been breached....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

The Authority upheld a complaint from ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd (‘ANZ’) that an item on Seven Sharp was inaccurate and misleading. The item concerned a customer who had had a dispute with the bank and in December 2018 entered an ANZ branch and pretended he had a bomb. The Authority agreed that the item breached the accuracy standard as it created a misleading impression that the customer was paid a settlement as a result of his actions at the bank, when in fact the dispute had been settled and he had received a settlement payment months earlier. The Authority considered the question of whether the item undermined law and order to be borderline. The broadcaster took a light-hearted human interest approach to a serious story, and the item risked encouraging and promoting illegal activity....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News, about claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) that staff had been abused and attacked by anti-1080 protestors, breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was unlikely to mislead or misinform audiences, as it contained comments from various parties including a DOC representative, an anti-1080 campaigner and a National Party MP. The Authority highlighted the importance of the reporting on issues of public importance in an accurate and balanced manner, finding that the broadcaster did so on this occasion....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of The AM Show featured an interview with Hon. Kelvin Davis regarding the Government’s scheduled series of nationwide Hui with Māori. The programme also discussed legal action taken by prisoners against the Department of Corrections over strip searches, and a short clip of comments by host Duncan Garner on this issue was included in a promo for The AM Show broadcast that evening. A complaint was made that Mr Garner’s comments in relation to the first topic amounted to racist ‘slurs’ against Māori and were dismissive of the Crown’s efforts to fulfil its Treaty obligations, and that the discussion of the second topic trivialised prisoners’ ‘serious abusive treatment’. The Authority did not uphold either aspect of the complaint....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the talkback programme, Overnighter, host Garry McAlpine invited listeners to call in to discuss the issues facing New Zealand in 2018, one of which was the upcoming cannabis referendum. Mr McAlpine strongly expressed his view, throughout the programme, that cannabis should be decriminalised for medicinal and recreational use. A number of callers, including the complainant, expressed their views on the subject, with some supportive of, and others opposed to, Mr McAlpine’s views. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Talkback radio is known for robust discussion, and broadcasting standards recognise that it is an opinionated environment, with hosts granted some latitude to be provocative and edgy in the interests of generating robust debate. This programme in particular featured genuine discussion on an important issue in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Breakfast, in which the hosts and viewer feedback discussed people stealing at supermarket self-service checkouts by putting in the wrong code for items they are purchasing. The Authority found the programme did not actively encourage viewers to steal or break the law in breach of the law and order standard. Across the programme as a whole, the hosts and viewers offered a range of views on the ethics of stealing at self-checkouts, including strong views against such behaviour, and clearly acknowledged it was ‘theft’ and illegal. The tone of the discussion was consistent with audience expectations of Breakfast and its hosts, and would not have unduly offended or distressed viewers, so the good taste and decency standard was also not breached....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A participant on 'The Panel' during Afternoons with Jim Mora made comments about men wolf whistling at women, such as 'bring back the wolf whistle', 'a whistle is not harassment', 'a lot of women are the ones that haven't been whistled at, that have got a problem with it' and 'we are the peacocks, you guys are the ones that look at us'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast condoned and encouraged sexual harassment of women, as the panellist's comments were clearly her own opinion and did not reach the level of offensiveness required to find a breach of the relevant standards....

ComplaintInside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision – documentary – abortion –inaccurate statements – unbalanced – undermined New Zealand legislation FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2a – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 4 – programme balanced – no upholdStandard 5 and Guidelines 5b, 5d & 5e – mixture of fact & opinion – accurate and impartial – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Inside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision was a documentary which followed three women while they made a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Several other women, who had been through the same experience, were also interviewed on the programme. The documentary was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 28 November 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Benidorm – showed a man being slapped in the face by two different women – allegedly in breach of law and order, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence was slapstick humour – broadcaster exercised care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for three comedy programmes Bonkers, Benidorm and The Sunshine Girls was broadcast on TV One at 12. 27pm on Thursday 18 October 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – repetition of footage showing an unprovoked attack on Korean youths by two “skinheads” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – repetition of sequence helped emphasise vicious nature of attack – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not glamorise behaviour or encourage imitation – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – repetition of sequence not gratuitous – verbal warning sufficient – justified in the context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 1 May 2007, reported the sentencing of two “skinheads” involved in a racist attack on a group of Korean youths in Nelson....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Kaho Naa… Pyaar Hai (Say… You’re in Love), a Bollywood romantic thriller film, was broadcast on free-to-air television channel APNA TV between 3pm and 6pm. The film featured action scenes containing violence. The Authority upheld a complaint that the film breached a number of broadcasting standards. The film was broadcast unclassified and with an incorrect programme description, which meant audiences were unable to make an informed viewing choice and were unable to regulate their own, and their children’s, viewing behaviour. The film’s inclusion of violent imagery such as beatings, shoot-outs, murder and dead bodies, and the visual depiction of these acts occurring onscreen, warranted an AO classification and later time of broadcast on free-to-air television....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Michael Laws Talkback – host spoke about shooting journalists – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – specific nature of the comments had clear potential to distress and offend, whether or not they were intended to be taken literally – upheld by majority Standard 2 (law and order) – host was not seriously encouraging listeners to shoot journalists – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Talkback radio is an important part of broadcasting in New Zealand and has been for a long time. Research which we have conducted has shown that about one-third of the adult population in New Zealand listens to talkback radio from time to time. 1 They do so for different reasons....

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – item reported Government to pay defence bill for depositions hearing of private prosecution of police officer charged with murder – featured as unusual event whereas complainant claimed that it was standard practice – not consistent with legal principles – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 2, 4, 5, and 6 – news selection issue – not broadcasting standards matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Government’s decision to pay the defence costs at the depositions hearing of the private prosecution of Constable Abbott for the murder of Stephen Wallace was reported as a "bolt from the blue" in an item on One News on Saturday 15 June 2002. One News is broadcast daily on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a hip hop song contained racial slurs (including the n-word). The Authority noted the broadcaster apologised to the complainant for the offence caused and removed the song from its playlist. The Authority considered this action was sufficient and, in all the circumstances, it was not necessary to determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, which broke the story of Dr Jonie Girouard issuing medical certificates to patients to attempt to use as vaccine exemptions, breached the privacy and law and order standards. The item featured hidden camera footage filmed by an undercover journalist posing as a patient at Dr Girouard’s practice. The Authority found the footage shown did not breach the privacy of other patients at the practice who were filmed without their consent, as they were not identifiable. It found that the footage did breach the privacy of Dr Girouard, on the basis she was identifiable in the broadcast, and the covert footage amounted to a highly offensive intrusion on her reasonable expectation of seclusion....