Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby – comedy series about a politically incorrect relief teacher – teacher threatened to sodomise a pupil – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, a comedy series about a politically incorrect teacher in a New Zealand school, the main character threatened to sodomise a pupil if he refused to name which of his classmates had drawn a crude cartoon on the blackboard. The episode screened on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 May 2005. Complaint [2] Dame Laurie Salas complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was not something a viewer would expect in “supposedly responsible” television....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-088:Health Action and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-088 PDF349. 47 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the Labour Party’s ‘Ready for Work’ policy, which offered unemployed young people employment on the minimum wage in environmental and community projects for six months. The item reported that, according to Labour, the scheme would cost $60 million per year for 10,000 participants. However, the $60-million sum was actually ‘based on participants taking up the scheme for just four months, not the promised six’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was based on inaccurate and unsubstantiated conclusions made by the reporter featured in the item, which was misleading and damaged the credibility of the Labour Party....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News covering police brutality in the United States of America and comments made by its President Donald Trump about deceased victim of police brutality, George Floyd. The item reported Mr Trump was ‘copping more flack’ for his comments and that, ‘celebrating better than expected employment numbers, he bizarrely called it a great day for George Floyd’. To the extent the broadcast may be considered inaccurate or misleading for suggesting an incorrect interpretation of Mr Trump’s comments, the Authority found it was not material. The Authority also considered Mr Trump is a high profile politician and public figure and could have reasonably expected to be subject to such scrutiny. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Yo-Kai Watch was in breach of the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. It found that, while the episode contained negative stereotypes that may not be appropriate for children, and which some parents or caregivers may not approve of, the adult themes and sexual innuendos within the episode were not likely to be understood by child viewers, and the potential harm did not reach the level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

SummaryAn episode of Hollywood Sex was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 26 August 1999. This two-part programme looks at some of the more unusual activities which take place in Hollywood’s sex industry. Mr Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contravened standards of decency, and that young people could watch and be influenced by "the very bad aspects of the programme". Mr and Ms Curtis complained that the programme was "the most disgustingly blatant sexual perversion [they had] ever had the misfortune to see", and that the programme was unsuitable for screening at that hour because of the likelihood of children watching. In its responses to the complaints, TVNZ said that it did not consider that it had breached any broadcasting standard. It noted that the programme was broadcast at 9. 30pm, carried an AO certificate, and was preceded by a warning....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-041 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-170 Decision No: 1966-171 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ANNE BAKER (2) of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-189 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AGCARM Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....

Summary A stripper exposed her breasts in a scene during a strip show in Heartbeat broadcast on TV One on 18 November 1998 at 2. 10pm. Ms Hutchings complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the content was inappropriate in a programme which had been classified PGR and was broadcast during the afternoon. She argued that it was unsuitable viewing for children, and that it perpetuated stereotypical views about women, thus breaching several broadcasting standards. In its response, TVNZ acknowledged that the material was more suited to an adult audience, but maintained that it was not unsuitable for younger viewers when under the guidance of an adult. It did not consider it had been incorrectly classified. Further, TVNZ argued, the content did not breach any broadcasting standards, given its context in a drama clearly classified as PGR. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint....

Summary A news item on Midday reported on increasing lawlessness and the use of vigilante justice amongst black communities in South Africa. It focussed on a group of vigilantes avenging the alleged pack rape of a young woman, and included footage of the accused men being beaten by the woman and some vigilantes. The item was broadcast on TV One on 29 April 1999, and repeated in One Network News at 6. 00 pm. Mrs Ripley complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that graphic footage of defenceless people being beaten and kicked, preceded only by what she said was a "quiet warning from the news-reader", should only be shown in the late news, if at all. Such violent scenes should not be shown at a time when children and young teenagers were able to watch, she wrote....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on the separation of migrant families in the United States. The complaint was that references to President Donald Trump’s ‘immigration crackdown’ and ‘Trump’s policy’ of separating children from their parents were misleading, unbalanced and unfair as the relevant law pre-dated Trump’s presidency. The Authority concluded the broadcast did not breach the accuracy, balance or fairness standards, as the references reasonably reflected the Trump administration’s position regarding the enforcement of criminal prosecutions for illegal immigrants. The Authority emphasised the high level of public and political interest in the story and found that any limitation on the right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of comedy gameshow, Have You Been Paying Attention? , which depicted the President of the United States Donald Trump wearing a capirote (a pointed hood as worn by members of the Ku Klux Klan). The Authority found such confronting symbolism pushed the boundaries of acceptable satire. However, it did not breach the good taste and decency standard, given the importance of freedom of expression and satire as a legitimate form of expression. Mr Trump’s public profile was also a factor. The complainant had not identified any affected section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applied. Nor did the accuracy standard apply as the programme was not news, current affairs or factual programming. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Shortland Street that included scenes of a man injecting another against his will, removing one of his organs, then drinking alcohol from a glass with a bloodied glove. In the context, including the programme’s nature, classification and intended audience, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress, or undue harm to child viewers. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint concerning a remark on 1 News about Pasifika people having a sense of comfort when dealing with clinicians and other staff who look like them. The complainant alleged this was racist. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it concerned an interpretation of the remark that no reasonable viewer would reach. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...