Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-062 Decision No: 1998-063 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland and KATE AND DAVID TURNER of Upper Hutt TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe programme WCW Nitro features professional wrestling bouts staged in front of a live audience. In the episode broadcast on TV2 at 10. 30pm on 20 November 1998, the wife of one wrestler was held and verbally abused while her husband was administered a hiding in wrestling terms by several other wrestlers. Mr Poata complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting and breached both the general standards and the standards relating to the portrayal of violence. He accepted that the sequence might have been staged, but maintained it was unacceptable as it was "choreographed gang rape". TVNZ acknowledged that the wrestler’s wife had been demeaned and the performance breached currently accepted community norms of good taste and decency. It upheld the complaint under the standards dealing with these issues....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday – item on the sentencing of Millie Elder for drug offences – referred to her as the adopted daughter of Paul Holmes – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – the word “adopted” was not used in a pejorative way – statement was true – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News: Midday, broadcast on TV One at 12pm on Monday 31 March 2008, reported on the sentencing of Millie Elder on drug offences. At the beginning of the item, the presenter said: The adopted daughter of broadcaster Paul Holmes, Millie Elder, will be sentenced in the Auckland District Court today on a range of drug charges. Paul Holmes arrived at court to support his daughter, as did her mother, Hine Elder....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reviewed political career of Helen Clark – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item offered limited historical review of Helen Clark's time in Parliament – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – 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 9 November 2008, reviewed the political career of the then leader of the Labour Party, Helen Clark, who was defeated in the New Zealand general election held the previous day. The One News presenter introduced the item by saying: So let's take a look at how Helen Clark's career stacks up. She is Labour's longest serving leader and the only one to win three terms as Prime Minister....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reported on the use of anti-depressants – excerpts from a radio talkback show were used in the item – two excerpts involved the complainant discussing her use of anti-depressant drugs – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable in the item – item did not disclose any private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on the 20/20 programme, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 30 August 2007, examined the use of the anti-depressant drug Aropax and the difficulty some people had experienced when trying to stop using it. The item included excerpts from a radio talkback discussion concerning the use of anti-depressants....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ghost Squad – scene showing a gang of teenage girls beating an off-duty police officer until he was unconscious – one of the girls was seen to urinate over the man’s head as he lay on the ground – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Ghost Squad, a British drama series about a crime unit in which police officers policed their colleagues, was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 15 August 2006. The programme featured a scene in which a gang of teenage girls beat an off-duty police officer until he was unconscious....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with central figure in reality television show There’s Something About Miriam – discussed her transsexual status and contact with contestants on show – allegedly breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – nothing indecent or distasteful to the extent of breaching standard – interview conducted appropriately given subject matter – not upheld Principle 7 (programme classification) – programme news or current affairs – not classified – was sufficiently mindful of the possibility of child viewers – no warning required as contents adequately signposted – not upheld Principle 9 (children’s interests) – news and current affairs programme not directed at children – interview conducted appropriately – sufficiently mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – item about a sexual assault trial – unnecessarily violent and graphic material – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 9 and Guideline 9a – no disturbing material – no uphold Standard 10 and Guideline 10g – no explicit details – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A One News programme, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 8 April 2002, featured coverage of the trial of six secondary school students who had been accused of a sexual assault on a male class-mate. The reporter described some of the evidence heard in Court about the assault, including that a broomstick had been inserted up the victim’s anus. [2] Viewers for Television Excellence Inc....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented with reference to ACT MP David Garrett, “He is a complete waster....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported on a new prenatal test for Down Syndrome. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item discriminated against people with Down Syndrome and was unbalanced because it did not show a situation where identifying a baby with Down Syndrome was viewed positively. Comments suggesting that a low probability of having a baby with Down Syndrome was ‘good news’ were clearly the personal opinions of the interviewees and were not endorsed by the programme. The item itself made no judgement about the test or the outcome of testing in terms of whether a foetus diagnosed as having Down Syndrome was a good or a bad thing. The item was squarely focused on the benefits of the new test in that it was more accurate, and less invasive than other procedures....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-177:H and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-177 PDF724. 94 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-083:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-083 PDF350. 5 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-031:Terry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-031 PDF262. 84 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of an American sitcom Dr. Ken, Dr Ken met his wife’s successful former boyfriend, Dr Kevin O’Connell, and was jealous. At the end of the episode, Dr O’Connell was portrayed as being drunk and asking Dr Ken’s staff for a lift home. The three staff all replied in unison, ‘I’ll do it! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the scene normalised rape and portrayed rape against men as a ‘laughing matter’. In the context of a fictional sitcom, which was intended to be humorous, the scene did not carry any level of invective, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Dr....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that an interviewee’s reference to ‘the Queen of England’, during an episode of Waka Huia, was inaccurate and discriminatory towards those in the United Kingdom who were not English. The complainant has previously referred a number of complaints about this issue to the Authority, which were either not upheld, with comprehensive reasons given for the Authority’s decision, or which the Authority declined to determine. The complainant’s appeal of a previous decision to the High Court on a similar issue was also dismissed. The Authority therefore declined to determine the complaint under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, on the grounds that it was trivial and vexatious....

 The Authority has upheld a complaint that a promo for The Shallows shown during Finding Dory breached the children’s interests standard. The Authority found that the promo, which featured sinister and scary shark related content, was inappropriate for a child audience which would likely have been disturbed or alarmed by it. The Authority noted the importance of scheduling and editing promos for AO programmes appropriately, taking into account the classification of the host programme, and also the time of broadcast, target and likely audience of the host programme, and audience expectations. In considering the contextual factors, the Authority also found that the promo did not meet the G classification of the host programme. The Authority made no orders, and determined that the publication of the decision was sufficient to publicly notify and remedy the breach and would provide appropriate guidance to the broadcaster and to broadcasters generally....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the usage of the word ‘root’ in a Seven Sharp item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority took into account the relevant contextual factors including the nature of the discussion, the nature of the programme and the audience expectations of the programme. The Authority did not consider that the use of the word threatened community norms of good taste and decency, or that any potential harm justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...