Search Rapua

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with eye-witnesses – failure to observe standards consistent with maintenance of law and orderFindings(1) Standard G5 – no prejudice to any proceedings or disrespect for principles of law – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Waitara couple who had witnessed some of the events which resulted in the shooting by police of Stephen Wallace was interviewed on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 2 May 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. I B Owen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was tantamount to "trial by television" and breached the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-100:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1992-100 PDF477 KB...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a promo for Taranaki Hard. The Authority found the item was within audience expectations for a promo shown during an unclassified news programme. It did not actively promote or glamorise illegal behaviour nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence or cause harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the good taste and decency and other standards about comments on Magic Talk regarding the LynnMall terror incident. Host Stephen McIvor responded “well spoken” to a caller who praised police for their actions (killing the suspect) which saved the country money. While insensitive, the comments did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Life on Mars – included a brief scene of a man having his hand held down and hit with a telephone receiver – allegedly in breach of law and order and violence Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was rated PGR – violence was fleeting – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the programme Life on Mars, a British science fiction and police drama television series, was broadcast during One News at 6pm on TV One on Monday 23 June 2008. [2] The promo included a brief scene of a man being interrogated....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported public criticism of Taupo District Council’s apparent inaction in Turangi over the state of a swimming pool, sports ground facilities, and footpaths – interviewed chairman of the Taupo/Tongariro Community Board – allegedly in breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order, balance, fairness and accuracy FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – no disrespect for principles of law shown– not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – state of council facilities was controversial issue of public importance and reasonable opportunity given to respond to criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – criticisms advanced by named residents – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ormsby given opportunity to reply to criticisms of specific facilities – Turangi described fairly – opportunity for residents to participate in setting priorities for expenditure of rates explained – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – episode showed three dogs being taken from their owner as they were not registered and were aggressive towards other dogs – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – focus was on dogs being removed from owner because they were not registered – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has upheld one aspect of a complaint from three complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthic Vichar, broadcast on community radio station, Planet FM. During the programme, host Kuldip Singh made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding use of grant money and cheating or ‘unjust’ behaviour at a kabaddi tournament. The Authority found that the host’s comments reflected negatively on the complainants and as such, they should have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Authority did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. The Authority acknowledged the limited resources available to the broadcaster, but reminded it of its obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1989 to receive and consider formal complaints through a proper process, including where the broadcast subject to complaint is in a language other than English....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, characters Lincoln and Jack took Nicole out for drinks to take her mind off her attacker. Lincoln, who was previously in a relationship with a man, was shown taking an illegal drug which he gave to Nicole. Later in the episode, Lincoln and Nicole were shown in bed together. In the episode broadcast the following evening, Jack asked Lincoln about being gay and sleeping with Nicole. Lincoln replied that he did not have to ‘put a label on it’, saying, ‘I’m just me’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme’s portrayal of Lincoln’s sexuality, by a straight actor, could have damaging effects on young viewers or those struggling with their sexuality....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under several standards in relation to a segment on The Project. In the broadcast, comedian Justine Smith joked about throwing a half-eaten apple at anti-abortion protesters. The complainants alleged the segment was offensive, promoted violence and criminal activity, and discriminated against anti-abortion protesters. The Authority found that while the statements may have been offensive to some – in the context of the broadcast as a whole, taking into account audience expectations of the show, and the lack of any specific call to act – the alleged harm caused by the broadcast did not reach the thresholds required to restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression under any of the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, and Discrimination and Denigration...

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....

Paula Rose declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A panel segment during Larry Williams Drive discussed a recent High Court action brought by Phillip Smith against the Department of Corrections (Corrections), in which Mr Smith argued that his freedom of expression had been breached by Corrections staff preventing him from wearing his toupee. At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Mr Williams stated: ‘I say Janet, solitary confinement 24/7, dark room, with his toupee, with a little bit of waterboarding just to make it interesting’. The other panellists laughed, with one commenting, ‘You’re a hard man, Larry’....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item which reported on the road toll over Labour Weekend and showed images of an accident where a woman was hit by a truck. The Authority found the privacy, fairness, accuracy and law and order standards were not breached. The complainant alleged the driver of the truck was identified and the broadcast gave the impression they were at fault for the accident. The Authority found the item did not identify the driver of the truck nor reveal private information about them. The item did not refer to the driver, nor give the impression the truck driver was not driving safely. The item reported on what police had said were potential causes of crashes, but it was clear this was not referring to the specific incidents which had taken place over the weekend. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness, Accuracy, Law and Order...