Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made statements regarding the death of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Dixon’s family did not take part in the item and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 8. 42am on Thursday 5 February 2009, the programme’s presenters reported that convicted murderer Antonie Dixon had died in jail. The following exchange took place between the presenters: Host 1: Now in news just to hand, we can confirm that Antonie Dixon is the prisoner who has died at Paremoremo Prison....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Real Crime: The Investigator – programme analysed the conviction of a man for murdering his wife – disclosed the names and showed photographs of the man’s daughters – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – programme did not disclose any private facts – information already in the public realm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Real Crime: The Investigator was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 8 July 2009. The investigator, Bryan Bruce, took an in-depth look at the case of a man who was convicted of murdering his wife in 2001. [2] During the programme, the first names of the man’s daughters were disclosed and a photograph of the man and his two daughters was displayed by the investigator on his evidence board....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – programme focussed on forthcoming Civil Unions Bill – included a telephone poll asking viewers to respond to the question “Should gay relationships be legally recognised” – polls results found 24% in favour of gay relationships being recognised and 76% against – closing comments by host queried which polls politicians in support of the Bill were relying on – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – poll not presented as scientific – results reflected only the views of those willing to call in – limitations of poll clear – host’s comments presented as opinion not fact – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – item reported the issue of a safety advisory notice for an oil heater sold through the Warehouse – following item reported death of two girls in fire thought to have been caused by gas heater – complaint that items unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – each item balanced – not upheld Standard 5 – each item accurate – not upheld Standard 6 – juxtaposition of items created misleading impression – unfair – upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The issue of a safety advisory notice about the Brio Five Fin oil heater, sold through The Warehouse stores, was reported in an item broadcast on One News on 30 August 2003 beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Goober Brothers – part of Studio 2 – inventors of “Ja-Handal” – man performing handstands – dog urinated on man’s face – allegedly offensive and not in children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – type of humour depicted appeals to children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Goober Brothers was shown as part of the children’s programme Studio 2. It was a New Zealand-made series of two-minute items featuring mad scientists who come up with weird inventions. The “Ja-Handal”, a jandal for hands, was the invention shown on the episode broadcast on TV2 at 3. 20pm on 16 April 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interview with a man about the fate of his wife who died in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake – showed sequence of photographs as reporter stated, “As these police photos show, there were concrete cutters used on the western side of the building, but what about on the side [the woman] and four others were trapped? ” – photographs allegedly inaccurate and misleading FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – photographs used to illustrate assertions, based on eyewitness evidence, that concrete cutters were available but not used – use of photographs not material in the context of the item – photographs would not have misled viewers in any significant respect – 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…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-046:Malley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-046 PDF446. 44 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-133:Associate Minister of Health (Hon Maurice Williamson) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-133 PDF1. 02 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-043:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-043 PDF315. 9 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-003:King and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-003 PDF277. 03 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-058:Shepherd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-058 PDF323. 74 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Seven Sharp reported on the Russian government banning adoptions of its orphans by New Zealand couples, because of New Zealand’s marriage equality legislation. The reporter referred to Vladimir Putin as ‘homophobic’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate and misleading. The comment was clearly analysis and commentary by the reporter, rather than a material point of fact, so it was not subject to standards of accuracy. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction [1] A Seven Sharp item reported that the Russian government had banned adoptions of Russian children by New Zealand couples, because of New Zealand’s same-sex marriage legislation. The reporter referred to ‘old homophobic Vladimir Putin’. The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 3 July 2014. [2] Terry Wallbank complained that the reporter’s reference to Mr Putin as homophobic was inaccurate, biased and misleading....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga 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 covered ‘the Foreign Minister’s controversial payment of $11. 5 million towards businessman Hmood Al-Ali Al-Khalaf’s Saudi farm’. It reported that Minister Murray McCully had ‘struck the deal to avoid a $30 million legal threat’, but then denied that there had been a legal threat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair to the Minister by failing to distinguish between Mr Al-Khalaf merely assessing his legal position and actually threatening legal action, and consequently misrepresenting the Minister’s position. The issue arose through the use of ambiguous language, both by the broadcaster and by the Minister, and did not justify the Authority upholding a breach of standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed the UK’s move to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040, to encourage the use electric vehicles (EVs). Following the item, presenter Mike Hosking outlined the ‘hurdles’ to be overcome before a similar move could be made in New Zealand, stating that there was ‘no charging network’ in New Zealand and that the cost of EVs was ‘too high’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Hosking’s statements were inaccurate and misleading. Noting that the accuracy standard does not apply to statements of analysis, comment or opinion, the Authority found that, in this case, Mr Hosking’s statements on the cost-effectiveness of EVs, and the lack of charging network in New Zealand, represented his own opinion and analysis on the topic, which viewers would not have expected to be authoritative....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints about episodes of Shortland Street, which followed the ongoing storyline of a threesome between a married couple and their nanny. The Authority acknowledged that some viewers might find this storyline distasteful and that some scenes and references might have raised questions for children. However, the Authority found that various contextual factors, including audience expectations of the long-running television drama and a warning for sexual material, prepared audiences for the likely content and minimised the potential for undue harm. The sexual material and references contained in these episodes were relatively inexplicit, with no nudity or sexual activity beyond kissing shown. Finally, the fictional sexual activity took place between consenting adults and no illegal or seriously antisocial activity was portrayed during the programme....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a 1 News segment breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The Authority found that people who hold the views represented in the segment do not amount to a ‘recognised section of the community’ for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also found that, while the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, it was balanced by the inclusion of multiple points of view from several parties. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...