Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]How to Make Money Selling Drugs, a documentary film about the United States’ drug industry, featured a mock ‘how to’ guide for being a successful drug dealer. The documentary then examined and critiqued the United States’ ‘War on Drugs’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the documentary provided ‘information and tips to. . . potential drug dealers’ and encouraged crime. How to Make Money Selling Drugs was a satirical documentary which used broadcasting devices to gain viewers’ attention and highlight a significant problem in our society. While the documentary may have initially appeared to present positive aspects of drug dealing, it went on to explore the negative consequences, such as incarceration and death. The documentary did not condone drug dealing, and offered alternative solutions to combatting drug use in society....

ComplaintShortland Street – episodes about a child of drug dealer in coma having taken a capsule of cannabis oil – drug dealer said she gave child small amounts of cannabis oil to calm him as he was ADHD – offensive – encouraged illegal behaviour – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a and Standard 2 – use of cannabis oil to treat ADHD child shown as unacceptable and irresponsible – no uphold Standards 4 and 5 – do not apply to fictional programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The treatment of a child "Max", who had taken a capsule of cannabis oil was a story line in an episode of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 17 July 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about 14-year-old boy accused of throwing eight kilogram slab of concrete from motorway bridge killing a motorist – boy had been granted name suppression – name of accused was shown for approximately five seconds written on a folder – complaint that broadcaster had breached name suppression order – broadcaster upheld complaint under law and order standard – complainant dissatisfied with action takenFindingsDecline to determine complaint pursuant to section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 3 July 2006 discussed a court case involving a youth accused of throwing an eight kilogram slab of concrete from a motorway bridge, killing a passing motorist....

ComplaintThe Private Lives of Giants – documentary – imperial measurements used – breach of taste – breach of law – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Standard G2 – no community standards issues – no uphold Standard G5 – complaint referred to specific statute not legal principles – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Private Lives of Giants was the title of the programme broadcast in the "Documentary New Zealand" slot at 8. 30pm on TV One on 23 July 2001. Non-metric measures were used throughout the programme. [2] Mr Fortune complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of imperial measures. He considered that the metric system of weights and measures, which had been introduced by law in 1969, was being deliberately flouted....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

Complaint The Edge – radio announcer challenged two men to run naked down a main street – offensive behaviour – incited breach of law FindingsPrinciple 2 – no evidence that broadcaster encouraged disrespect for law – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn announcer on The Edge challenged two men to run naked down a main street in Queenstown. The event was broadcast live on The Edge (a radio network) at about 7. 30am on 25 May 2001. Inspector Phil Jones, the Area Controller for the Otago Rural Police in Queenstown, complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the behaviour which he said had been "incited" by the announcer, was "unacceptable". The RadioWorks did not uphold the complaint. It disagreed that the radio station incited the participants, and maintained that the incident was intended to be humorous and not distressing to the public....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sports Tonight – reporter interviewing supermarket staff and patrons – ate a lolly from one of the bulk bins – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – light-hearted prank – viewers not encouraged to break the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sports Tonight broadcast on TV3 at 11. 15pm on 11 March 2005 featured a reporter interviewing supermarket staff and patrons about sports trivia. During the segment, the reporter ate a lolly from one of the bulk bins. Complaint [2] Stephen Ross complained to CanWest TVWorks Limited, the broadcaster, that the actions of the reporter had amounted to theft under the Crimes Act 1961. By broadcasting the item to “the easily influenced public”, he contended, CanWest had endorsed the reporter’s actions....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2011-485-840 PDF137. 27 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – discussed anniversary of massacre at Aramoana – interviewed policeman who was involved – said “fucking” twice – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority’s research suggests majority of viewers would consider “fucking” unacceptable before 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – two items broadcast one after the other – first item reported on the re-opening of the euthanasia debate in the United Kingdom following the screening of a television documentary which showed a terminally ill man taking a lethal dose of drugs in Switzerland – second item reported on a voluntary euthanasia campaigner who had the words "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" tattooed on her chest – both items allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and children’s interests standards FindingsItem on assisted suicide Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – report was tasteful – did not endorse either position – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item preceded by warning –…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – story explored the craze surrounding imitations of Jackass movies involving dangerous stunts and an internet site that was profiting from it – footage of stunts shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and law and order standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – shocking footage was appropriate given the focus of the programme – warning was adequate – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item was a cautionary tale – did not encourage or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – use of the phrases “Prime Minister of England” and “future King of England” – allegedly inaccurateTe Karere – use of the phrase “Te Kuini o Ingarangi” instead of “Te Kuini o Aotearoa” allegedly inaccurate and in breach of law and orderOne News – use of the phrase “Queen of England” allegedly inaccurate and in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 – nothing in the items inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldStandard 5 – phrase in common usage – viewers would have known who was being referred to – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] On 8 April 2005 at 6pm, Close Up broadcast an item covering the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and the funeral of Pope John Paul II....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3 News discussed New Zealand’s efforts to remove the veto power held by permanent member states on the United Nations Security Council. Both the presenter and reporter referred to a recent example of Russia exercising its veto in relation to a proposed tribunal to investigate the crash of flight MH17. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the item was misleading and unbalanced because Russia in fact was supportive of investigating the MH17 tragedy and holding those responsible to account, but was not in favour of setting up a tribunal on the matter. The item was materially accurate and the reference to Russia’s exercise of the veto power did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance which triggered the need to present alternative views....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a Newshub Live at 6pm item on the Paralympics depicting a hug between sisters Lisa Adams and Dame Valerie Adams. The complaint was that the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests, and law and order standards as the Paralympics occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst various physical distancing restrictions were in force. The Authority found the item did not breach the standards specified as it did not encourage non-compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence, or harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Law and Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on Newshub Live at 6pm about the current war in Ukraine. The complaint was in relation to the map used in the segment, which showed Ukraine, Russia and other nearby countries, and depicted Crimea as a part of Russia. The Authority acknowledged that the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war in Ukraine is a highly sensitive topic and found the map did contain inaccuracies. However, the Authority found the segment was materially accurate, as the map would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole. In the circumstances the Authority determined that regulatory intervention was not required. The programme information, law and order, and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Programme Information, Law and Order, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast on the criticism faced by London Police following their actions in stopping a vigil for murdered woman Sarah Everard, as participants were not abiding by the COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time. The Authority found the item was not unfair to the London Police Chief or the London Police. It did not actively encourage non-compliance or seriously undermine law and order. The balance standard was not applicable as the item did not amount to a ‘discussion’. Not Upheld: Fairness, Law and Order, Balance...

Summary The fate of money belonging to Holocaust victims but deposited in Swiss bank accounts during World War II was the subject of commentary on "Aspects of Israel" broadcast on Access Radio on 29 June 1997 beginning at 11. 15am. The commentator questioned the honesty of the Swiss in dealing with the money. Mr Carson of Wellington complained to Access Radio, the broadcaster, that the remarks impugned the integrity of the Swiss and, therefore, were offensive and discriminatory. Access Radio responded that the comments related to Swiss banks and bankers, and did not refer to the Swiss as a people. Further, it considered that even if ill will was incited against those bankers who controlled the assets of Holocaust victims, it was unlikely that any of those people were in New Zealand....