Search Rapua

Search Decisions
Broadcast Information
Codes and Standards
Date Range
Showing 1 - 6 of 6 results.
SORT BY
Decisions
Edgewell Personal Care and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2021-077 (15 September 2021)
2021-077

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item investigated a mother’s concerns following her son getting severe sunburn despite applying Banana Boat SPF50 sunscreen, and more broadly how sunscreens are tested under New Zealand regulations, and whether the public should be able to rely on claims on sunscreen labels. The Authority found the mother’s comments were clearly her opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply, and the programme was not otherwise inaccurate or misleading. The programme did not allege Banana Boat sunscreen does not work, nor that it does not comply with regulatory requirements. The complainant, as the company responsible for Banana Boat, was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to issues raised in the story and its response was fairly presented.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

Decisions
Real Nappies Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2020-148 (31 March 2021)
2020-148

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance

Decisions
Britt and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2011-160
2011-160

During the Fair Go Ad Awards, two teams of advertisers were asked to design advertising campaigns within the programme, to “sell us Quade Cooper for New Zealand’s next Prime Minister”. The campaigns included comments such as “everyone hates Quade Cooper”. A complaint was made that the “Hate Quade” theme was unfair and encouraged “hatred of a person”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint: the piece was intended to be light-hearted and humorous and was presented in the spirit of good-natured ribbing and team rivalry, so was not unfair, and the discrimination and denigration standard only applies to sections of the community, not to individuals.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration

Decisions
New and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2004-005
2004-005

Fair Go "Ad Awards". Good taste and decency. Children's interests. Not upheld

Decisions
Olsen-Everson Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2000-174, 2000-175, 2000-176
2000-174–176

Fair Go and promo. Episodes reported that vendor of a house believed he had been unfairly charged a second commission by real estate agents after a first sale had fallen through and a subsequent sale had been made. His belief was alluded to in a promo for Fair Go which was broadcast on a number of occasions. Uphold: promo (fairness). Not upheld: programme (fairness). Subsumed (balance, responsible programming). No order

Decisions
Jardine Insurance Brokers Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1994-070
1994-070

Fair Go. Two programmes examined problems associated with extent of cover provided by crop insurance. Upheld: some aspects (balance, fairness). Upheld: majority: some aspects (accuracy). Order (broadcast of summary of decision).