Search Rapua

Complaint Mercury Lane – segment on short film Cow – film shown in full – bestiality – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Mercury Lane was broadcast on TV One at 9. 05pm on 24 November 2001. The programme is a series which looks at various aspects of the arts in New Zealand. One of the segments was about the short film Cow. The film was broadcast in its entirety, and comment from the actors and the writer/director followed. [2] E P Cook complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a scene in Cow in which one of the characters appears to be having sex with a cow. [3] TVNZ did not consider that the scene breached standards relating to good taste and decency, in the context in which it was broadcast....

ComplaintMarathon Man – film – offensive language – warning ought to have been broadcast – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The movie Marathon Man was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on 22 May 2002. [2] Mrs M Charlton complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the movie contained offensive language, and that viewers ought to have been warned about its use. [3] Prime upheld the complaint and apologised to the complainant. It explained that appropriate staff had been reminded of Prime’s collective responsibility "with emphasis placed on not making assumptions on behalf of viewers and that warnings must be specific in nature". [4] Dissatisfied with the action taken in response to her complaint, Mrs Charlton referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Horace in Slow Motion – showed cartoon pig ‘picking his nose and eating it’ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Horace in Slow Motion, a 45-second cartoon about Horace the pig, showed Horace ‘picking his nose and eating it’. The footage was accompanied by audio of children saying, “Ewww, you’re gross, Horace. ” The short programme was classified G (General) and broadcast at 5pm on Tuesday 18 June 2013 on TV2. [2] Jason Walker made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that it was “unacceptable [in] today’s society to pick you[r] nose and eat it”....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-173:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-173 PDF259. 91 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-058:Mental Health Foundation and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-058 PDF307. 63 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-053:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-053 PDF407. 75 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-047:Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NZ) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-047 PDF267. 19 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a story about two local residents, labelled ‘herb detectives’, who were determined to track down the man they believed was responsible for stealing their herbs. The reporter and the ‘herb detectives’ visited the local market looking for the alleged thief and spoke to a woman, Shunfang Shen, who was selling herbs. The reporter asked Mrs Shen where her herbs were from, and one of the residents said, ‘It looked very much like my mint. ’ The Authority upheld a complaint from Mrs Shen that the action taken by TVNZ, in upholding her complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair, was insufficient. The Authority acknowledged that TVNZ attempted to remedy the breach of standards, including by broadcasting a correction several days after the item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item focused on couple who received verbal estimate for plumbing work that was significantly less than the final bill – included interview with the couple and the plumber –advised viewers on how to avoid unanticipated costs by obtaining written quotes – allegedly unfair to plumber FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – plumber provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his viewpoint was adequately reflected in the item – item did not create unfairly negative representation of plumber’s character or conduct – high level of public interest in advice provided to tradespeople and consumers – plumber treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about dispute between two local councils in Manawatu region – stated that “Horizons Regional Council is taking Palmerston City Council to Court because it says the city is polluting the Manawatu River with sewage” – out-of-focus image of cattle grazing was displayed during the introduction to the item – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – image of cattle was blurry and difficult to discern – was used as visual wallpaper for introduction to item relating to pollution in rivers – image was not related to the item, but the item made it clear the focus was on pollution from sewage so viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – farmers are not a section of the community to which the standard applies – not upheld This…...

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. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-091:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-091 PDF374. 61 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-015:Dunckley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-015 PDF93. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-164:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-164 PDF362. 98 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 64/95 Decision No: 65/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEGAVITAMIN LABORATORIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and DR WARREN STEWART of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R A Barraclough Co-opted member...

The Authority has upheld part of a complaint about satirical comedy series, James Must-a-pic His Mum a Man, finding it was unfair to the complainant, James Mustapic’s father, and action taken by the broadcaster (having upheld two aspects of the fairness complaint) was not sufficient to remedy potential harm to the complainant. Comments were made throughout the series which the Authority found created a negative impression of James’ father and had the potential to adversely affect him and his reputation – meaning the broadcaster should, in the interests of fairness, have informed him of the nature of the programme and his participation prior to broadcast....