Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 33/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

ComplaintNew Rulers of the World – promo for the John Pilger documentary – answer to one question presented as answer to another – unfair and deceptive – complaint upheld – in-house action taken FindingsSerious breach – action taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The John Pilger documentary, The New Rulers of the World, was screened on TV One at 9. 45pm on 10 October 2001. In a promo broadcast earlier, Mr Fisher of the IMF was seen to respond to a statement from Mr Pilger saying "what are you asking me this question for". However, during the broadcast it was apparent that this response was made to another unrelated question. [2] P G Hatton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo, by using this editing practice, was unfair and lacked objectivity....

Summary The Jesus Seminar movement, which denies the literal resurrection of Christ, was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One beginning at 7. 00 pm on Good Friday, 10 April 1998. Mr Fox complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unbalanced in failing to interview a person of equal academic standing to Dr Veitch, who had been interviewed on behalf of the movement. Footage of school children in the item gave the message that Easter was for children and at the same level of belief as the Easter bunny, he wrote. TVNZ replied that it was appropriate on Good Friday to reflect on the diversity of views which existed within Christianity. The pastor interviewed had an extensive background in theological research, TVNZ wrote, and he provided the item’s balance....

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Birdland – presenter Jeremy Wells looked at birdlife in New Zealand – visited a weka farm in Southland – was shown caring for pet mice then releasing them to be eaten by weka – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – guideline 9d – animals badly treated – gratuitous and not justified by context – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Birdland, a locally produced wildlife programme hosted by comedian Jeremy Wells, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 14 November 2009....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-110 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W M MOORE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – investigation of availability of ingredients needed to make methamphetamine or ‘P’ – hidden camera footage of two shopkeepers – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not list all of the ingredients needed to make ‘P’ – no recipes or techniques mentioned – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – high level of public interest in the items – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not relevant to complainant’s concerns – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcaster did not mislead or alarm viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – skit called “Dr Rangi” – doctor examined female patient’s breasts – became visibly sexually aroused as the female patient responded coyly – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history. An episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 10pm on 12 March 2007 contained a skit called “Dr Rangi”, which was a send-up of 1970’s sitcoms, involving a Maori doctor. [2] The skit involved Dr Rangi examining a female patient’s breasts and becoming visibly sexually aroused as the female patient responded coyly....

ComplaintOur People Our Century: "In the Family Way" – inaccurate, sexist statements – women portrayed as victims, men as violent abusers FindingsG1 – not inaccurate – no uphold G4 – not unfair – no uphold G6 – not relevant – balance not required in social history – no uphold G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The first episode of the documentary series Our People Our Century was broadcast on TV One on 7 February 2000 at 8. 30pm. It was entitled "In the Family Way" and looked at family life in New Zealand through the experiences of three different families. Bruce Tichbon complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme made a number of inaccurate sexist statements in relation to men, and unfairly and inaccurately portrayed women as victims and men as violent abusers....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-042:McNair and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-042 PDF331. 38 KB...

The Authority has upheld two complaints concerning the accuracy of a brief 1News item on 15 November 2024 about heightened security in Paris following violence the previous week around a football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam. The item reported, ‘Thousands of police are on the streets of Paris over fears of antisemitic attacks…That's after 60 people were arrested in Amsterdam last week when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters. ’ TVNZ upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis the item ‘lacked the nuance’ of earlier reporting on the events, by emphasising the ‘antisemitic’ descriptor while omitting to mention the role of the Maccabi fans in the lead-up to the violence. The Authority agreed with this finding and further found the action taken by TVNZ was insufficient....

A majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the host of The Chase New Zealand, Paul Henry, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. When a contestant told Henry she would spend any prize money on a trip to the Taj Mahal in India, Henry said ‘You’ve got to be so careful what you eat,’ and that several of his friends had ‘exploded’ in the Taj Mahal, where it is ‘very hard to find a bathroom’. Later in the episode, Henry said, ‘$45,000, Taj Mahal, you can buy a lot of wet wipes with that. ’ The complainant said the comments had the potential to encourage discrimination against India and Indian people, through reinforcing harmful racial stereotypes that India (and, by association, Indian people) are dirty and unhygienic....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Last House on the Left – horror movie contained scene which showed the violent rape of a young teenage girl – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – rape scene was justified by the movie’s “external” and “narrative” context – viewers were provided with sufficient information to regulate their own viewing behaviour – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – contextual factors – rape scene was not gratuitous or designed to titillate – explicit warning for graphic and sexual violence – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] The Last House on the Left, a remake of a 1972 horror movie by Wes Craven, was broadcast on TV2 at 10....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a personal anecdote told by Seven Sharp presenter Jeremy Wells, describing the moment ‘Angela D’Audney sat on my desk as a 20-year-old in a leopard-print mini-skirt’. Stumbling over his words, Mr Wells then said, ‘see, it’s got me excited even thinking about it’. The complaint was that Mr Wells: outlined sexually inappropriate conduct against a female coworker; undermined and demeaned his female coworkers; and by saying it on national television, normalised and condoned sexual discrimination in the workplace. The Authority acknowledged Mr Wells’ choice of anecdote was ill-advised and inappropriate and that it may have offended some people. However it emphasised that in itself is not sufficient to find a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration. There is a high threshold for finding a breach, in light of the important right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the couple's privacy as the information was already in the public domain at the time of broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A presenter on the satirical cooking programme Posh Nosh, broadcast on ANZAC Day, described the presentation of food on a plate as 'dreadful, stacked up like dead soldiers in a trench'. The presenter also described the placement of a lemon on a fish as looking like 'I've got a yellow hat up my bottom'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these comments were offensive and inappropriate. The programme was unrelated to ANZAC Day and the comments would not have offended most reasonable viewers in context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] A presenter on the satirical cooking programme Posh Nosh, broadcast on ANZAC Day, described the presentation of food on a plate as 'dreadful, stacked up like dead soldiers in a trench'....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....