Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-043:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-043 PDF444. 79 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed a controversial wall-hanging in a Puhoi Pub bearing the n-word, and included footage of the wall-hanging itself. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the good taste and decency standard by displaying the offensive term multiple times, when the item could have discussed the issue without doing so. The Authority noted the item censored verbal reference to the term by the pub’s owner, and was preceded by a verbal warning that ‘some viewers may find details in Jenny Suo’s story distressing’. It also noted the item’s footage of the wall-hanging was part of its critical examination of the issue, the offensive term was not depicted outside that context, and the broadcast carried significant public interest in creating an active public discourse....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Summary A trailer broadcast during the news hour on One Network News on 20 May 1998 between 6. 00-7. 00pm advised that New Zealand’s Rugby Sevens team was at "Israel’s Wailing Wall". The item itself included a caption which identified the Wailing Wall as being in Jerusalem, and the script identified it as part of Israel. The Wellington Palestine Group, through a representative, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster that both the trailer and the item perpetuated an untruth, as the Wailing Wall was not part of Israel. The group said it objected to seeing TVNZ being used as a vehicle for Israeli propaganda. TVNZ responded that both the trailer and the item were in error in describing the Wailing Wall as being in Israel. On these points the complaint was upheld....

SummaryThe New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7. 00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at the government’s surplus and the likelihood of tax cuts – presenter made a comment regarding possible tax cuts – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – presenter’s statement appeared to take a position – statement was balanced by comments from the political reporter – issue of tax cuts had a long history and was well publicised – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 4 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 October 2007, discussed the cause and effect of the Labour-led Government’s $8. 6 billion surplus and the likelihood of tax cuts before the next election....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Green Party was calling for an urgent safety review of non-stick cookware – claimed the US Environmental Protection Agency had found possible links between non-stick cookware, cancer and birth defects – veterinarian stated that non-stick pans could be deadly to household birds – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item contained misleading and inaccurate statements – would have unnecessarily alarmed viewers – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any person or organisation taking part in the programme – not upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $927. 50 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-013 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 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 A Martin...

ComplaintOne News – in view of low water levels, news item about the exposure of ships sunk in River Danube in Second World War – estimated up to 2000 bodies in the river – reference to Nazi navy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 – not relevant – no uphold Standard 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdStandard 5 – unable to establish facts – decline to determine Standard 6 not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The extremely low levels of the River Danube in Serbia had resulted in the exposure of a number of German Navy ships from the Second World War which had been scuttled as the Nazis withdrew. It was reported that up to 2000 people on the ships had been drowned when the ships were scuttled....

ComplaintAssignment – documentary about child abuse – archival footage of Heperi family used – permission not sought – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard G4 – disturbing and upsetting, but not unfair – no suggestion of link to child abuse – use of footage ethically questionable – broadcasters to take special care – no uphold Privacy – deceased person not an "individual" within meaning of the Act – other family members do not meet identification threshold – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A documentary on TV One’s Assignment programme, broadcast on 2 November 2000 at 8. 30pm, endeavoured to identify the root causes of child abuse and violence in the Maori community....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in standard cosmetics – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 12 October 2010, interviewed a woman who was launching a new “eco-glam” cosmetics brand made from natural ingredients, in New Zealand. The presenter introduced the item as follows: These days we’re bombarded with the organic message and all the costs that go with it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Real Crime: Broken Promises, Broken Brides – investigated the mistreatment of foreign brides in New Zealand – profiled a Malaysian woman who died of a methadone overdose – interviewed her husband who was convicted of her manslaughter – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme did not create a misleading impression that the complainant intended to murder his wife – reporter outlined the facts of the case and clearly stated the complainant was convicted of manslaughter – complainant’s perspective was included in the programme – programme was accurate and would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was provided with a sufficient opportunity to give his perspective in two interviews – interviews were not unfairly edited – overall complainant was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rude Tube – series featured viral video clips from the internet – “Animal Madness” episode included a clip of a man taking “an unscheduled toilet break” in a paddock, and being chased by a donkey apparently attempting to mate with him – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – most viewers would not have been offended – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not amount to “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-004:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-004 PDF205. 83 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Good Morning the presenter interviewed two recently eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the presenters referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, as these words did not feature in the broadcast. Declined to Determine: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A presenter on Good Morning interviewed two eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand, while they cooked a dish. The programme was broadcast on TV ONE on 17 April 2014. [2] Shane Moore complained that the programme breached the discrimination and denigration standard because the presenter referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, and attacked ‘mentally disabled people’. [3] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, host Mike Hosking offered his views on the incident of Prime Minister John Key's repeated pulling of a café waitress' ponytail. He described the waitress' motivations for speaking out as 'selfish' and 'a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks'. The Authority upheld complaints that this was unfair to the waitress. While public figures can expect criticism and robust scrutiny, in the Authority's view the waitress was not a public figure. The format of the 'final word' segment did not allow for a response from the waitress so she was unable to defend herself in this context. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints. Upheld: FairnessNot Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationNo OrderIntroduction[1] In April 2015 there was public disclosure of some conduct of the Prime Minister....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 133/94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P HEATHER COSH of Taumarunui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 64/94 Dated the 15th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

In a Seven Sharp item, a presenter expressed his surprise by asking an interviewee ‘how the bejesus did a snake get into New Zealand’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the item breached the good taste and decency standard. While acknowledging terms such as ‘Jesus’ and its variations like ‘bejesus’ may be offensive to some, the Authority found expressions of this nature used as exclamations, will not likely cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...