Search Rapua

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Breakfast stating ‘20 million tonnes of plastic waste’ was being exported each year breached the accuracy standard. The figure was accepted as inaccurate (with an estimate of 35,000 tonnes more likely). However, in the context of an item focussed on a petition to address the harm caused to other countries as a result of New Zealand’s large-scale plastic waste exports, the Authority found it was unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an editorial segment on KPMG Early Edition, host Rachel Smalley discussed the standing down of British Labour MP Naz Shah after accusations of anti-Semitism. Ms Smalley went on to question why criticism of Israel is often viewed as criticism of the Jewish faith, referring to comments she made during a broadcast in 2014 which were critical of Israel and the ‘abuse’ she received in response. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that Ms Smalley’s reference to her previous comments was misleading – partly because she did not refer to the Authority’s finding that one of her previous statements was inaccurate – and that the item was unbalanced....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the satirical series Go Ahead Caller, in which host Ken Oath ‘equates our majority government with those in some other countries where socialism failed’, featured a phone call from a fictional caller, who used the word ‘shit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast and the use of this word breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that the use of the word complained about was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, in the context of the broadcast. The Authority also found that, given the satirical nature of the programme and audience expectations, the broadcast did not threaten community norms of good taste and decency, or justify restricting freedom of expression....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party which included questions on possible funding cuts a National-led government might make. The complaint was that these statements were an inaccurate portrayal of National’s proposed cuts. The Authority found the statements were clearly questions and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than statements of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. The harm alleged was not sufficient to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention. Standard E4: Misleading Programmes did not apply. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy), E4: Misleading Programmes...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that The Hui breached the discrimination and denigration standard through its use of te reo Māori without subtitles, and by demonstrating ‘Māori-centric racism’ in its discussion of whether mātauranga Māori should be viewed as science. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances)...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 American Pie Presents: Beta House – movie contained nudity and sex scenes – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – recording of broadcast unavailable – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A movie called American Pie Presents: Beta House was broadcast on FOUR at 8. 30pm on 24 May 2011. [2] Gus Hastie made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the movie contained nudity and sex scenes close to the 8. 30pm watershed, in breach of standards relating to children’s interests. [3] Mr Hastie referred his complaint to the Authority on the basis that he had not received a response from the broadcaster within the statutory timeframe....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Checkpoint covering the Select Committee report on the Abortion Legislation Bill was unbalanced, unfair and discriminated against unborn children. The Authority found: ‘unborn children’ were not a recognised section of the community; the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints on the issue discussed; and the item did not result in unfairness to anyone taking part or referred to. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News including criticism of Easter trading restrictions and of the councils imposing them, in the wake of COVID-19 and its impact on retailers. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced on the basis it failed to include the views of the councils being criticised, and of others who supported current restrictions, such as unions and churches. The Authority found, in the context of an item discussing criticism of the status quo, and where debate about Easter trading restrictions and coverage of such debate is ongoing, viewers were unlikely to be left misinformed by the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance...

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…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the remark was blasphemous and offensive to Christians. The use of variants of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation does not amount to coarse language in modern secular society. Here it was intended to be humorous rather than abusive or offensive, and it was acceptable in context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The episode was rated AO and was broadcast on TV ONE at 10. 05pm on 26 September 2013....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-071:Dunlop and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-071 PDF264. 43 KB...

Summary An interview with a bisexual author of erotic books was included in 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 31 October 1999 between 7. 30–8. 30pm. The woman described herself as "an amateur sexologist" and explained how she had become an expert on the subject of erotica. Mr Hausmann complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the material was pornographic, breached the good taste standard and was unsuitable to be shown at a time when younger viewers could be watching. He also maintained that the item lacked balance because it did not show the serious downside of what he termed sexual addiction. TVNZ responded that the programme had profiled a New Zealand woman who had been approached by a publisher to produce a work on female erotica. It suggested that the complainant had made an unfair assumption by concluding that the woman had a sexual addiction....

ComplaintOne News – Gisborne pathologist – misdiagnosis – inaccurate interpretation of statistics; unfair to pathologist FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfair to report the errors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The inquiry into the misdiagnosis of cervical smears in Gisborne was the subject of a report on One News broadcast on TV One on 7 January 2000 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. The item reported that the pathologist’s error rate was 86%. Stuart Slater complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the report was inaccurate and unfair to the pathologist. In his view, an attempt should have been made to provide a neutral, informed commentary against the allegations made. TVNZ responded that its report accurately represented the figures released by the Health Funding Authority and were attributed to it....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT – host broadcast listener’s email address and said “send him an email” – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle 4 applies to email addresses – personal email address is also a private fact under privacy principle 1 – however host’s disclosure of email would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Willie and JT programme, broadcast on Radio Live on the afternoon of 22 October 2010, one of the hosts read out an email from a listener in response to the hosts’ discussion about union action over the film The Hobbit. After reading out the email, which strongly disagreed with the host’s opinion, the host said: . . . That’s from [listener’s full name]....

SummaryA DB Player Profile of cricketer Tony Blain was broadcast by Television One on 6 March1994 during the cricket coverage on One World of Sport. The Secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL), Mr Turner,complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast of the item sandwichedbetween two promotions for Dominion Breweries amounted to contrived incidental liquorpromotion in contravention of the Programme Standards. TVNZ accepted that the broadcast of the item showing a player wearing a shirt with a DBlogo amounted to a breach of the principle in the standards which requires theminimisation of the incidental promotion of liquor. It reported that player profilescontaining similar shirt-front regalia would not again be broadcast. However, as theappearance of the logo had been accidental, it did not uphold the complaint that thebroadcast was contrived....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reported on high profile immigration case involving Chinese millionaire William Yan – disclosed Mr Yan’s address and showed footage of Mr Yan’s business assistant in the lobby of the apartment building where Mr Yan lived – allegedly in breach of privacy standard FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Yan’s address was not disclosed for the purposes of encouraging harassment as envisaged by privacy principle 4 – no evidence that harassment resulted from the disclosure – apartment building lobby was accessible to the public so neither Mr Yan nor his business assistant had a reasonable expectation of privacy there – item did not breach the privacy of Mr Yan or his business assistant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....