Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reporting that Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards had disappointed both critics and fans – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item did not include material which breached good taste and decency norms – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Michael Jackson – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards in London was covered in an item broadcast on One News on TV One on 17 November 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – language – “fuck you” – allegedly offensive – warning requiredFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – warning not necessary – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Spooks is a BBC drama series built around the activities of a fictional counter-terrorism unit attached to MI5. MI5 is the government agency responsible for internal security. In an episode beginning at 9. 30pm broadcast on TV One on 24 February 2004, one character said to another “fuck you”. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive and the programme should have been preceded with a warning. Standards [3] TVNZ assessed the complaint under Standard 1 and Guidelines 1a and 1b of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported that Plunketline telephone service to be replaced by broader Healthline service – Minister of Health questioned on whether her support for Healthline was consistent with election pledge in 1999 to support Plunketline – allegedly unbalanced and interview edited unfairly Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item omitted Minister’s explanation for the change of her political point of view – unbalanced – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item omitted Minister’s comment on central issue – unfair – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The replacement of Plunketline, a telephone service for caregivers, with a broader Healthline telephone service was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One on 7 July 2004....

ComplaintSunday – investigation of Dr Richard Gorringe who had been found guilty of professional misconduct and disgraceful conduct through use of alternative medicines – biased – unfair – misleading FindingsStandard 4 – reasonable opportunities given – not unbalanced – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Gorringe dealt with fairly as ample opportunity given to present views – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The use by Dr Richard Gorringe of alternative medicine, alongside conventional medicine, was investigated in an item broadcast on Sunday at 7. 30pm on TV One on 2 September 2003. Dr Gorringe had been found guilty by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on two charges of professional misconduct and one of disgraceful conduct. [2] Margaret Kirk complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unfair, and trivialised the work of Dr Gorringe....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male sex scene – sodomy – breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1, Guideline 1a – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 14 May 2002 at 9. 35pm on TV One included a scene of two males having sex in a car park. [2] Rob Hodgkinson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was offensive and unacceptable even for "adult only" viewing. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the scene did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Hodgkinson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint60 Minutes – correlation between a particular milk protein and childhood diabetes and heart disease – unbalanced coverage of controversial topic – inaccurate FindingsSection4(1)(d) – soy milk not an aspect of item – omission of reference to soy milk did not result in lack of balance – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A rare protein found in cow’s milk was implicated as being a factor in heart disease and childhood diabetes according to an item on 60 Minutes broadcast on 12 November on TV One beginning at 7. 30pm. Mr R F James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced because it omitted to discuss the causal relationship between soy protein and the development of childhood diabetes....

ComplaintThe Machine – "arse end" used to describe Southland – quiz show aimed at children and teenagers – offensive language – broadcaster not mindful of children FindingsStandard G2 – insufficiently offensive to constitute breach – majority – no uphold Standard G12 – majority – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary One of the presenters of the TV2 quiz show The Machine, during the episode broadcast at 5. 30pm on 17 June 2001, introduced two competing school teams from Northland and from Southland as being "one from the top, one from the arse end" of the country. Robin Duff complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that such "crude language" was unacceptable. He said the word would have been acceptable in, for example, a police drama directed to adults, but not in a young person’s quiz show....

ComplaintOne News – footage of atrocities in Chechnya – disturbing and alarming – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard V16 – no warning – broadcaster did not demonstrate it was mindful of children – footage graphic and disturbing – uphold Decision No: 2000-033 distinguished ObservationStandard V12 – not cited – potential uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage of atrocities committed by the Russian army in Chechnya was broadcast on One News on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 25 February 2000. A body was seen being pushed off a truck, and another was shown being dragged by the heels behind a truck. There were also shots of more bodies being buried by soldiers. John Shrapnell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unacceptable to show graphic shots of such atrocities in the early evening....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during Coronation Street – contained sexual references – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual references were fleeting and innocuous – consistent with viewer expectations of Coronation Street and PGR timeband – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, was broadcast on TV One between 7. 30pm and 8. 30pm on 12 July 2011, during Coronation Street which was rated PGR. [2] In the promo, the characters were shown talking about their quiz topic strengths, while thinking about their personal lives, as follows: Emma: I like animals and I know a bit about cooking. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the National Party’s proposed asset sales policy – stated that the Government had refused to release information under the Official Information Act and that a complaint to the Ombudsman revealed that the Government had very little official advice regarding its claim about limiting foreign ownership – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item highlighted that the Government received limited official advice on limiting foreign ownership and questioned its decision not to release further information about that aspect of the policy – was not overly critical of the Government – high value speech – included comment from Prime Minister John Key – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on, and interviewed, young Māori activist who expressed his views on the Government’s sale of state assets and mining proposals – presentation of item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – views expressed by Wikatane Popata represented one end of a political spectrum – his views were described as radical and audience would have understood that they were not representative of all Māori or young Māori – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on the Popata brothers and their political views – reporter took “devil’s advocate” approach and programme included viewer feedback – not upheld Standard 1…...

Mary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and stood aside from this decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-055:Roberts and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-055 PDF237. 35 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-063:Wilcox-Clarke and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-063 PDF278. 23 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of High Country Rescue, a man with a broken leg expressed his gratitude to a search and rescue team, saying, ‘it would have been a frigging long hopping walk to the hut’. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the word ‘frigging’ was offensive and inappropriate for the timeslot. The complainant has made many complaints about language at the low end on the spectrum of offensiveness, and the Authority’s previous decisions ought to have put him on notice of the likely outcome of this complaint. Declined to determine: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During an episode of High Country Rescue, a man with a broken leg expressed his gratitude to Land Search and Rescue workers, saying, ‘I really appreciate your help… it would have been a frigging long hopping walk to the hut....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-118:Felderhof and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-118 PDF386. 53 KB...