Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters had several light-hearted discussions about the Pope – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – presenters did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenters’ comments distinguishable from points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not denigrate the Pope or Catholics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7am on Tuesday 26 February 2008, the presenters, Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell, and the newsreader, Peter Williams, had a jovial discussion about the current Pope and what he had been doing recently....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Thousand Apologies – sketch comedy lampooning the pan-Asian experience in contemporary New Zealand – allegedly denigratory Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – programme clearly satirical and intended to be humorous – skits did not encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of A Thousand Apologies, a television sketch comedy that addressed the diversity of the pan-Asian contemporary experience in New Zealand and lampooned stereotypes and situations, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Friday 12 September 2008. [2] One of the skits in the episode involved a man being interviewed about his experience with one airline....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about a 15-year-old girl who had run away from her home in Auckland – showed the girl in security camera footage in a shop with two young companions – included footage of the house she was found in – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and children’s interestsFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boys not portrayed as being at fault – not unfair – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 February 2005 told the story of a 15-year-old Auckland girl, Emma, who had run away from home to a family in Te Awamutu....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – "Return to Sender" – item about the return to Sri Lanka of a 16-year-old woman who was deported despite claims that she had been sexually abused by family members to whom she was returning – included footage shot in Sri Lanka with members of the young woman's family and included comments about the sexual abuse of children in Sri Lanka – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with law and order and breached young woman's privacy – item allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – no New Zealand law in dispute – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (vii) – consent form signed by grandmother on young woman's behalf – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – item discussed two controversial issues – (1) specific deportation and dangers for young woman –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about pyjamas purchased from The Warehouse that had ignited and burned a five-year-old boy while he was standing next to a gas heater – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster upheld one aspect of accuracy – balance, fairness and dissatisfaction with action taken referred to AuthorityFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – action taken by broadcaster on aspect it upheld was sufficient – no other inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to The Warehouse in the preparation and presentation of the programme – upheld Orders Broadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $3,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintThe Last Word – power crisis – interview on 10 April with Save Energy spokesperson – comment by presenter on 30 April – both unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – 10 April – speaker given opportunities to respond in item with a chat format – no uphold; 30 April – presenter’s brief contribution to debate discussed extensively elsewhere – no uphold Standard 6 – interviewee on 10 April not treated unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The power crisis was dealt with in an item on The Last Word broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 10 April 2003. The Save Energy spokesperson was interviewed and the presenter commented that she did not intend to save power because the crisis was "the Government’s fault"....

ComplaintZG FM Gisborne – offensive language – "eff–off" – "piss off" – reference to complainant on air FindingsPrinciples 1 and 7 – in context – no uphold Principle 5 – reference ambiguous – no uphold CommentBroadcaster’s complaints procedure and process for recording programmes unsatisfactory This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During the morning programme on 22 September 2000, an announcer on Gisborne’s ZG FM said "eff-off". On 20 October he said that by playing a certain song, he would "piss off" some colleagues. After a listener called the station to complain about his language, the announcer made reference to her complaint on 25 October, saying "I can’t say ‘piss off’ or Mrs Pascall will get hacked off about it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse by a man, P against a 90-year-old woman, E. The programme also featured P's 'mentor' (M), a spokesperson from E's bank and comment from E and her grandson. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. Both P and M were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment, the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the item was accurate and the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required the presentation of alternative views. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A and Marae Investigates – items discussed domestic violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed controversial issue of public importance – items clearly framed as focusing on men’s violence against women – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of domestic violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-082:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-082 PDF1. 41 MB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand documentary: “What’s Really in our Food” – discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme fairly presented significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to persons or organisations taking part or referred to in the programme – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled “What’s Really in our Food” was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 13 September 2007. The programme discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live talkback – complainant strongly criticised the host’s approach in an interview with Georgina te Heuheu MP – after some two minutes of uninterrupted comment, the host cut off caller and, while declining to identify her, said that she had her own agendas and that she shouldn’t ring because it wasn’t appropriate for her to call talkback – broadcaster’s approach allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – complainant’s criticism of host and host’s criticism of complainant were not controversial issues of public importance - standard does not apply – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – host’s critical response to experienced caller’s criticisms in robust talkback environment not unfair – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – standard does not apply as exchange was neither news nor current affairs – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....