Search Rapua

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

ComplaintOur World: Clever Dicks – Part 2 – clever creatures shown – image of kea in AMI Insurance advertisement included – kea prising tail light from vehicles – inaccurate representation of kea FindingsStandard G1 – image not a point of fact – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Our World: Clever Dicks – Part 2, broadcast on TV One at 8. 05pm on 17 March 2001, included footage of New Zealand’s kea rapidly completing a series of tasks which, on the face of it, seemed to require a certain amount of reasoning to accomplish. An image of kea prising the tail lights from vehicles, drawn from an advertisement for AMI Insurance, was also included. Roger Conroy complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme featuring the advertisement was inaccurate when it showed kea prising the tail lights out of vehicles....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 135 /94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (Rt Hon HELEN CLARK) 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: 90/95 Decision No: 91/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JILL JEFFS of Orewa and R BROWN of Otorohanga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 117/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 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 I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 157/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C A MAUDE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-038 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D THOMPSON of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A promo for the Billy T Awards was shown during This is Your Life which featured Michael Jones on 29 October 1997 beginning at 8. 30pm. The promo referred to masturbation. Mr Hay of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inappropriate to include the promo during the broadcast of a programme about a well known sportsman which would be watched by a large number of young people. He said he found it offensive and crude. TVNZ responded that it unhesitatingly agreed with Mr Hay that the promo was inappropriately placed. It explained that it was an error of judgement which had been acknowledged by the department responsible for making and scheduling of programme trailers. It apologised for causing offence. Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, My Hay referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-104 Dated the 10th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CANTERBURY HEALTH LIMITED of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved a man with extensive burn injuries seeking revenge on his victims by burning them alive – showed victims being covered in petrol and set on fire – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and violence FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – high degree of explicit violence and disturbing themes constituted strong adult material that warranted an AO 9. 30pm classification and later time of broadcast – programme incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – episode contained explicit violence – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – level of violence in 8. 30pm broadcast was unacceptable in context, despite AO classification – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary Overcrowding in state owned housing was the focus of an item on Holmes broadcast on 27 August 1998 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The issue had become topical when, the previous day, the Chief Executive of Housing New Zealand had suggested that for some families it was a matter of choice that they lived in overcrowded conditions. Michael Cashin, Chairman of Housing New Zealand, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair and unbalanced because it misrepresented the status of the family shown. In his view it was unfair and inaccurate that the programme portrayed the family as having not being offered any other options and being left to endure overcrowded accommodation. He maintained that TVNZ should have sought a privacy waiver so that Housing New Zealand could respond by discussing the true circumstances of the family shown....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that the average difference between men’s and women’s weekly pay was 31 percent – allegedly in breach of accuracy FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint vexatious and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 14 December 2009, examined the issue of gender pay equity in New Zealand. The reporter interviewed a pay equity expert, who stated that “the gender pay gap here in New Zealand is actually wider than most people think. The average difference between men’s and women’s weekly pay is 31% this year....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men and Scrubs promo – male character in Scrubs promo stated "I don’t like doing things I'm not good at", to which female character responded, "Yeah, that's why we don't have sex much" – male doctor in Scrubs promo talking to a female nurse said "My post-op is going in and out of consciousness. You know what I'd like to go in and out of?...

Summary A reduction in unemployment levels was illustrated by use of a graph in a news item broadcast on One Network News on 4 November 1999 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Mr Kammler complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the visual message of the graph was distorted because the vertical axis had not started at zero. As a result, he said, the decline in the unemployment level appeared to be greater than it actually was. In his view the item had not reflected the truth. TVNZ acknowledged Mr Kammler’s argument, but said it was necessary to see the graph in its television context, where its function was to convey a stylistic indication of a trend, rather than being very specific information – such as in a written text – which could be referred back to later....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Build a New Life in the Country – contained coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Action Taken – broadcaster upheld the complaint, apologised and took steps to prevent future mistakes – action taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Build a New Life in the Country (rated G) was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Saturday 7 June 2008. The series followed British couples as they pursued their dream homes and lifestyles. In the 7 June episode, Jason and Phillipa had bought a chateau in France and planned to renovate it and open it as a bed and breakfast. The episode tracked their progress over nine months. [2] At approximately 7....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Q+A considered new initiatives proposed by the National Party to tackle domestic violence. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the item 'focused exclusively on women as victims and men as perpetrators of domestic violence', which showed a lack of balance and denigrated men. References to 'men' and 'women' did not amount to a 'discussion of gender' requiring the presentation of alternative views, as alleged by the complainant. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] An item on Q+A considered new initiatives proposed by the National Party to tackle domestic violence. The item contained an interview with the Minister of Justice and a panel discussion with a political scientist, a lawyer and a communications consultant....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the second part of a two-part documentary, Leaving Neverland, concerning sexual abuse allegations made by two men against Michael Jackson. The Authority took into account the nature of the programme, which was clearly presented from the perspectives of the two men featured and included responses to these and similar allegations, from Michael Jackson and his lawyers. In this context, the Authority found: the broadcast would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress as contemplated under the good taste and decency standard; the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not address a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ for New Zealand viewers; the programme was unlikely to mislead viewers and did not breach the accuracy standard; and the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...