Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint"A Tale of Tofu" – National Geographic documentary – unbalanced coverage of controversial topic – inaccurate FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – item dealt with tofu’s cheapness, versatility and availability, not health issues – not controversial topic – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "A Tale of Tofu" was broadcast by Sky Network Television Ltd on the National Geographic channel on 8 October 2000 at midday. It provided a cultural and historical overview of the role of tofu in Chinese life. Mr R F James complained to Sky Network Television that the broadcast was unbalanced because it presented tofu in a positive light, and failed to acknowledge that there was a significant body of evidence which showed that it was not healthy, and that it posed irreversible dangers to consumers....

Complaint Babies – documentary about 47-year-old woman having fifth child – first child when aged 18 – adopted at birth – adopted child shown and first name given – consent not given to broadcast the material – breach of privacy of child – complaint upheld – material objected to edited out in case of rebroadcast – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken insufficient – $500 compensation This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of Babies broadcast on 28 June 2001 told the story of "Maggie" who was having a child at the age of 47 years of age. The programme said that Maggie first gave birth when aged 18 and unmarried. It reported that the child was adopted out and included visuals of the child (as a young woman), gave her first name and said that she, too, had had a child....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on recent memorial to Māori Battalion in Gisborne – noted Maori Battalion had highest casualty rate of any New Zealand unit in the war – allegedly inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 5 (accuracy) – ambiguity in words used – complainant and broadcaster took different meaning from words – unable to determine accuracy – declined to determine under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News on 11 July 2004 noted the unveiling of a memorial to the Māori Battalion which fought in the Second World War. The item included the statement: By the time the Māori Battalion arrived home, they’d suffered the highest casualty rate of any unit in the war, 680 men killed....

ComplaintEyes Wide Shut – film – screened at 9. 30pm during school holidays – sexual content – unsuitable for children Findings Standard 1 and Guideline 1a – not relevant Standard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9b & 9c – 9. 30pm not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Eyes Wide Shut was a film broadcast during the school holidays, on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Tuesday 21 January 2003. The film was preceded by a warning which cited "strong sexual content", "nudity" and "drug use", and it was classified AO. [2] Cherry Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that by not providing sufficient information about the film prior to its broadcast, TVNZ failed to consider the interests of children....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint, under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard, about a 1News report’s reference to protests outside politicians’ homes sometimes being ‘effective, like during the Dawn Raids’. The complainant considered the Dawn Raids protest example, in the context of a story covering damage caused by protesters at Hon Winston Peters’ home, would encourage illegal or antisocial protest behaviour. The Authority found the programme was a straightforward news report covering responses to property damage at Peters’ home and progress of the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill (the Bill). It noted the report included numerous comments condemning the actions by protesters at Peters’ home and outlined the serious consequences suffered by those responsible. References to the Dawn Raids’ protesters were part of a report on comments made in Parliament during the Bill’s first reading....

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about an Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practice FindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Brent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Foveaux Radio had failed to cover the activities of Matthew Gould, an Invercargill businessman who had been charged with fraud. He contended that in this omission the broadcaster had failed to show balance and had used deceptive programming practice in its broadcasts, notably during the period of newsworthiness, between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Foveaux Radio, responded that it had taken note of Mr Procter’s thoughts and comments on the matter and would keep them in mind for future consultation with news providers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live Drive – host referred to “dirty Germans” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted – was not intended to reflect all Germans – host was expressing disapproval of tourists stealing native wildlife – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment related specifically to the German tourists who had stolen native geckos – did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against German people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Radio Live Drive, broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 4. 20pm on 9 March 2011, the host said: Have you ever thought about stealing a gecko? Why on earth would you steal a gecko?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on two National MPs and whether their business links in India were in conflict with their public roles in New Zealand – included footage of street scenes in India – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage did not contain any material which threatened standards of good taste and decency – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 30 March 2009, reported that two National MPs were facing questions about whether their business links in India were in conflict with their public roles in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – interview with a woman from Kiribati on a “personal mission” to save her homeland from the effects of climate change – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – it would have been clear to viewers that she was a climate change activist – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Sunrise, broadcast on TV3 between 7am and 9am on 19 August 2009, the presenters interviewed a community leader from Kiribati about her observations of the effects of climate change on her island. One presenter introduced the segment saying, “rising water levels and increasing temperatures are starting to have real effects on our day-to-day life....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-131:Ellmers and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-131 PDF282. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-012:Tregurtha and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-012 PDF394. 96 KB...

An episode of Marcus and Joni breached the accuracy standard as it contained inaccurate and misleading information about COVID-19 vaccines and their safety. It also promoted conspiracies and advocated for ineffective remedies. The Authority found the broadcaster had not made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme, particularly as the guests were not recognised experts in the subjects discussed. The balance and programme information standards did not apply. Upheld: Accuracy Not Upheld: Balance, Programme Information Orders: Daystar: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $500 costs to the Crown; Mainland: Section 16(4) - $500 costs to the Crown...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 110/95 Dated the 26th day of October 1995 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 J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-020 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LAURIE SANDERS of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-148 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GEOFF HOLDING of Gore Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 3/94 Dated the 17th day of February 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DARA WALSH of Hobsonville Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

ComplaintEmmanuelle 7 – adult movie – rape scene – offensive Findings Standard S2 – eroticised rape scene – unacceptable in context of adult movie – upheld Standard S29 – rape theme not treated with utmost care – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The adult movie Emmanuelle 7 was screened at 12. 30am on 13 September 2003 on SKY 1. The movie is rated “18”. [2] Rudy Hueting complained to SKY Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that a rape scene in the movie was unsuitable for broadcast. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, SKY maintained that in context the scene did not offend against broadcasting standards relating to good taste and decency or programmes which have rape as a theme. [4] Dissatisfied with SKY's decision, Mr Hueting referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....