Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-137 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WILLIAM J WYBER of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-185 Decision No: 1997-186 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MARTIN DURHAM of Upper Hutt and MAARTEN GROEN of Lower Hutt Broadcaster CHANNEL Z Wellington S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME was insufficient, after it upheld a complaint about language used in an interview on The Nutters Club. The interviewee told his story of overcoming drug addiction and offending, and now working to help others do the same. After saying, ‘Excuse all my language I use, too, it will get a little bit worse, it’s just how it is when you remember’, the interviewee used the words ‘fuck’, ‘shit’, and ‘arse’ (and variations of these) repeatedly. The Authority determined it would not have found a breach of the standards in the first instance, in the context of the broadcast....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 96/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W I G FOUNTAIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-033 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-102 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS NORMAN of Wellington Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LTD J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-026 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DIANNE BROWNE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...

ComplaintTeachers – shag and fuck and their derivatives – frequent use – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) and Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Teachers, an eight part series, was broadcast weekly on TV One at 9. 30 on Monday evenings. Using the idiom of the staff and pupils, it told the story of a young teacher of English in a comprehensive school in England. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the episode broadcast on 13 August 2001 included offensive language when using the words "shag" and "fuck" and their derivatives. [3] In response, TVNZ described the series as "contemporary, gritty and humorous" and said that it was classified as AO, broadcast an hour after the AO watershed, and preceded with an explicit warning. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – contained conversations of a sexual nature and coarse language – 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 Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 25 January 2008. The episode included conversations of a sexual nature, which came about by the host asking questions of the four contestants and then commenting on their answers. [2] An example of one such exchange was as follows: Host: (asking one of the three female contestants) Who out of Sharon and Sue has had sex with their partner’s big toe?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Muslim outrage caused by cartoons first published in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed – item concluded with satirical depiction of Jesus Christ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfair in that it encouraged the denigration of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – contrast in attitudes to freedom of speech about religious convictions is controversial issue of public importance – dealt with in balanced way in full item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – lampooning of Christians did not amount to blackening of reputation – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs not subject to classification system – warning was broadcast – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – warning included before current affairs item – not upheldThis headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – item about big budget films to be made in New Zealand – movie clip shown included a shot of a woman falling off her chair and her dress flying up – allegedly offensive and contrary to interests of child viewers FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – inexplicit – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – not unsuitable for children in context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item about the number of big budget films to be made in New Zealand featured on 3 News at approximately 6. 20pm on 7 June 2004. The item included interviews with two leading actors who said they were looking forward to working in New Zealand, one of whom was Jack Black....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB: Larry Williams Breakfast Show – host said "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" – offensive FindingsPrinciple 1 – colloquialism – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" was the phrase used by the host of the Larry Williams Breakfast Show when talking to a guest. The comment was made at about 8. 15am on 18 July 2003 on Newstalk ZB. [2] J H Mahoney complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the phrase, especially at that time of the morning, was disgusting. [3] In response, TRN described the phrase as a "widely used colloquialism" which would not have caused major offence to its primary audience aged 35 years and over....

ComplaintPromo for Pepsi Chart – man shown sitting on lavatory – behaving as if constipated – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Pepsi Chart showed a man sitting on a lavatory and reading a magazine. He was behaving as if he were constipated. It was broadcast on TV4 during the evening of 11 November 2001. [2] Tony Drackett-Case complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo was offensive. [3] In response, TV4 maintained that while it might be outside the expectations of "mainstream" audiences, it was not inappropriate on a niche channel aimed at young adults. It declined to uphold the complaint. [4] Dissatisfied with TV4’s decision Mr Drackett-Case referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintShortland Street – episodes about a child of drug dealer in coma having taken a capsule of cannabis oil – drug dealer said she gave child small amounts of cannabis oil to calm him as he was ADHD – offensive – encouraged illegal behaviour – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a and Standard 2 – use of cannabis oil to treat ADHD child shown as unacceptable and irresponsible – no uphold Standards 4 and 5 – do not apply to fictional programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The treatment of a child "Max", who had taken a capsule of cannabis oil was a story line in an episode of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 17 July 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Larry Williams Drive Show – host interviewed director of the Middle East Forum about his concerns with the growing Muslim population in Europe – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on interviewee’s views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments conveyed interviewee’s personal opinion – no discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – interview would not have alarmed or…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about launch of Green Party election campaign contained brief, out-of-focus background image of a person’s “butt crack” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 6 (fairness) – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 6 November 2011, reported on the launch of the Green Party’s election campaign. Green Party co-leader Russell Norman was shown addressing the attendees at the launch from a stage, and the camera panned down to focus on a baby in a pram. In the background of the shot of the baby, a person’s “butt crack” was briefly visible....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for The Graham Norton Show – promo for Christmas special showed a photograph of a couple dressed as Mary and Joseph holding a dog in swaddling clothes – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour – would not have offended most viewers in context – innocent lampooning of religious figures comes within the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour as opposed to a criticism of Christians – content did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....