Search Rapua

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....

ComplaintOne News – report on Crown compensation to Ngati Rua-Nui says many killed at invasion of Parihaka – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster as breach of standard G1 – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 1 March 2001 reported on an agreement for an apology and monetary compensation between the Ngati Rua-Nui people of South Taranaki, and the Crown. The reporter concluded the item with the following statement: Several hundred thousand acres were confiscated from Ngati Rua-Nui in the 1860s, and many were killed during the invasion of Parihaka. Colin Robertson and Liam Wright complained separately to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the item was inaccurate. They said there had been no deaths in the invasion of Parihaka....

ComplaintCoronation Street – two episodes included domestic discord – males struck by females – unnecessary violence – gender discrimination Findings Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – characters treated unequally in fictional series – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 10 – violence displayed appropriate to dramatic storylines – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Domestic incidents showing physical abuse of men by their women partners were included in episodes of Coronation Street broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 25 September and 7 October 2003. [2] Edwin Stranaghan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each incident involved unnecessary violence and gender discrimination. He contended that it was discrimination to show women assaulting men, when it was unacceptable to show men assaulting women. He also argued that the programme should be broadcast later in the evening....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – footage of interpreter during murder trial – High Court ruled that interpreter’s image was not to be broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – disclosure of complainant’s presence at trial would not be considered highly offensive by an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 23 July 2009 reported that the Justice Minister was calling for the repeal of the defence of provocation, following the conclusion of two murder trials. [2] The item included footage of both murder trials. Two brief shots of one of the defendants sitting in the dock were shown, with a woman sitting alongside the dock....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – item reported that a group described as Te Aukiwa Farm shareholders were evicting farm hands employed by the Office of Treaty Settlements and had requested police assistance – broadcaster upheld complaint that item was inaccurate – apologised to complainant and offered on-air apology and correction – complainant dissatisfied with the offer Findings Action taken – sufficient – broadcaster nevertheless encouraged to carry out the action it had undertaken – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An ongoing dispute about ownership of the farm block, Te Aukiwa Farm (Stoney Creek Station) 12km south of Mangonui, was dealt with on an item on Te Karere, broadcast on TV One at 4. 45pm on 15 September 2006, and repeated at 6. 10am on 16 September....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Place in Spain – man said “Jesus [bleep] Christ” during an argument – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of A Place in Spain was broadcast on TV One at 5pm on Wednesday 11 June 2008. The series followed Lee and Cheryl, a Welsh couple, on their dream of packing up their life in the United Kingdom and starting a snail farm in Spain. [2] At one point in the episode, Lee and Cheryl were shown in their new car having an argument about the directions being given by their satellite navigation system. During the argument, Lee said “Jesus [bleep] Christ” twice....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homegrown – programme investigating history of beer in New Zealand – words "bastards", "bloody", "crap", "boobs or balls" and "shitloads" used – other words censored – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – language was humorous rather than abusive – worst language was censored – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Homegrown, a locally produced series which investigated various aspects of New Zealand culture and particularly produce, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 1 November 2008. This episode looked at the history of beer brewing in New Zealand. [2] During the programme, the words "bastards", "bloody", "crap", "boobs or balls" and "shitloads" were used, predominantly by one of the interviewees. Some other words were bleeped out....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Not Going Out – scene showed character dancing with baby – held baby at arm’s length and moved him from side to side – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – character did not shake baby – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no actual violence – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – classified AO and screened at 11pm outside of children’s viewing times – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – characters fictional – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not specify who he considered had been denigrated or discriminated against – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on “skimming” scheme in which accused allegedly “fleeced money from customers who used eftpos machines inside at least one Auckland business” – referred to and showed footage of the “Brooklyn Bar” in Auckland where, according to one customer, he had his card “skimmed” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item wrongly identified the Brooklyn Bar as having been targeted by the fraud – Brooklyn Bar was singled out and was the only business identified, which was unfair and created the impression the business was unsafe – reporter should have obtained verification from the complainant who owns the bar – complainant not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and correct information – complainant and his business treated unfairly – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-059:Te Reo Takiwa O Ngatihine and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-059 PDF686. 17 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-113–114:Smits and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-113, 1993-114 PDF798. 21 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-160:Te Okoro Joseph Runga and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-160 PDF753. 81 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-024:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-024 PDF337. 02 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two items on Seven Sharp contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the items were inappropriate in a prime time news and current affairs slot. Both items were clearly intended to be humorous rather than titillating, and would not have been unduly offensive or unexpected for regular viewers, given the programme’s mix of serious news, banter and entertainment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] Two items on Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The first item, broadcast on 7 October 2013, included footage of a man’s YouTube parody of Miley Cyrus’ raunchy performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. The man was shown dancing provocatively around a toilet bowl wearing a bikini made out of glad-wrap....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-023:Burt and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-023 PDF293. 72 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘Carpool Kōrero’ segment in an episode of Popstars during which a celebrity guest talked to each of the contestants while apparently driving a car. The complainant alleged a young person may have been unable to discern the guest was not in fact driving, and therefore the broadcast breached the law and order standard. The Authority found reasonably attentive viewers would have likely understood the segment took place in a simulated environment and in any case the broadcast was unlikely to encourage audiences to break the law. Not Upheld: Law and Order...