Search Rapua

ComplaintOne News – item about death of Charles Bronson – obituary included film clips – unsuitable for children at that hour – violent FindingsStandard 9 – context – no uphold Standard 10 – care and discretion exercised – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The death of actor Charles Bronson was the subject of an item broadcast on One News, beginning at 6. 00pm on 1 September 2003. During the item, brief clips from some of the films in which the actor had appeared in were shown, including a scene where one character is shot by another. [2] Viewers for Television Excellence Inc (VOTE) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unacceptable to broadcast such a violent item during the news hour, and that the item was unsuitable for children....

Complaints Friends – two episodes – references to "peeing" in one and depiction of strippers in the other – offensive behaviour – actors involved aged twenty something – inappropriately classified G – broadcasters not mindful of effect on child viewers FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – affirms positive values – appropriately classified – no uphold Standard G12 – not alarming – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Friends is a long-established sitcom involving the adventures and love lives of six young people living in New York City. A jellyfish sting sequence was dealt with in the episode broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on 29 November 2001 and one of the characters, Joey, recalled that "peeing" on a sting had been recommended as a remedy on the Discovery Channel....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on the experience and fears of one woman dealing with her mentally-ill ex-husband – woman described her ex-husband as dangerous – dealt with failures of the mental health system – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – woman gave her opinions about her husband, did not make statements of fact about people with bipolar disorder in general – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, people with bipolar disorder or mental illness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-077:Wells and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-077 PDF301. 25 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-129:Kubala and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-129 PDF269. 54 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-041:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-041 PDF485. 61 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-034:Creighton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-034 PDF713. 18 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported on KPMG's latest report showing that banks collectively made a record profit in the last financial year. In the second part of the item the reporter gave a 'very basic explanation' of how banks 'make their money'. The Authority declined to uphold complaints that the item was inaccurate and misleading because it was based on the 'money multiplier' model rather than the 'fractional reserve banking' model. Although simplified, the explanation was generally correct. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News reported on KPMG's latest report showing that banks collectively made a record profit in the previous financial year....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

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 ONE News reported on concerns around a government-funded survey of health professionals and their views on voluntary euthanasia. It said that the survey was run by researchers who support assisted dying, and that it was alleged that the research was biased and flawed. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the researchers involved and to the university through which the research was run, as well as inaccurate and unbalanced. Comment was sought from the university and the researchers, whose position was presented in the university’s response and fairly reported in the item....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on complaints by two families about the allegedly unsatisfactory supply and installation of their swimming pools, purchased from The Spa and Pool Factory (SPF). During the item, the reporter also noted that the Auckland Council was investigating SPF regarding ‘potentially fraudulent documentation’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the director of SPF that the item was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of his privacy. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead viewers, going directly to Mr Radisich and to Auckland Council to seek their comments on the issues raised....

Chair Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Following the issue of this decision, the Authority received new information from a third party refuting certain allegations made by the complainant about, and descriptions of, the dairy farm referred to in the decision owned by 'B'. The Authority wishes to note that the descriptions of the farm owned by B used in this decision have been disputed. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Sunday, titled ‘The Price of Milk’, followed a reporter as he visited two dairy farms in the Hauraki Plains. The reporter spent time with two farmers, A and B, to hear their perspectives on their work and the issues facing the industry....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of the crime thriller series Paula, one of the characters used the phrase ‘Jesus fucking Christ’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of this phrase in the context of the programme breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that many people may find this phrase offensive. However, taking into account the nature of the programme, the pre-broadcast warning for frequent use of coarse language, the Adults Only classification, the time of broadcast and audience expectations of the programme, the Authority did not consider the use of the phrase threatened community norms of taste and decency, or justified restricting the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about a promo for Children Who Kill, broadcast at 5:30pm on a weekday during an episode of The Chase, has not been upheld by the Authority. The promo featured footage of a young boy and girl, with a voiceover explaining that the young boy murdered the girl and asking ‘should children who commit murder die behind bars? ’ The Authority did not uphold this complaint under the children’s interests or violence standards. The Authority found the promo did not go beyond the expectations of The Chase or TVNZ 1’s mature target audience. The Authority further noted that while murder and death are adult themes, the promo itself did not contain any unduly disturbing or graphic images or detail that required the restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has upheld a complaint about a broadcast which referred to the owners of the road cycling team ‘Israel Start-up Nation’ as ‘Jewish billionaires’. The complainant submitted the broadcast was offensive and racist as it made an unnecessary connection between money and Jewish people. The Authority found the effect of the broadcast was to embed and reflect harmful stereotypes, albeit unintended. The harm in this instance outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, and therefore the Authority upheld the complaint. Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration No order...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go was unfair to the fencing contractor investigated. The Authority found that the fencing contractor was not treated fairly, due to the way he was set-up to be interviewed (under the guise of calling him to a job) and because he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in the programme. The Authority also found that the inclusion of information about the contractor’s past which had a criminal element was unfair as it was not relevant to the issues being investigated in this item and contributed to an unfairly negative impression of him. The accuracy complaint was not upheld as the item did not mislead or present inaccurate information, and the balance standard did not apply as the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance....