Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 88/95 Decision No: 89 /95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALVA LANGFORD of Gisborne and ELISABETH GRUIJTERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 80/94 Dated the 19th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D. LOW of Kaeo Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about footage on a 1 News item of a person’s negative reaction after receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The Authority acknowledged the high public value and education in news reporting about COVID-19 testing and found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. The law and order, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Amazon with Bruce Parry – during the programme the presenter said “fuck” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcast prior to 8. 30pm watershed – research suggests that the word “fuck” would be unacceptable to majority of New Zealanders in this context – upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The programme Amazon with Bruce Parry was broadcast on Prime TV at 7. 30pm on Friday 26 June 2009. It was part of a series that examined the area around the Amazon River, its people, their culture, resource extraction and environmental issues....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-072 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY of Auckland Broadcaster ACCESS COMMUNITY RADIO AUCKLAND INC S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-135 Decision No: 1996-136 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CHILDREN�S MEDIA WATCH and G A SPARKS of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-178 Decision No: 1996-179 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by RCD APPLICANT GROUP of Dunedin and OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary The forthcoming Parole Board hearing for Paul Dally was dealt with during an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One beginning at 7. 00pm on 18 August 1999. Mr Dally had pleaded guilty to the murder of 13 year-old Karla Cardno in 1989, and the item included an interview with Mr Mark Middleton, Karla’s stepfather. In response to some questions as to why he had asked the Parole Board to release Mr Dally, Mr Middleton said that it provided the opportunity for him and his friends to "take him". R J Healing complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reporter’s questions were insensitive, and had encouraged a distressed man into making statements he might later regret. TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint as a breach of the standards relating either to taste or fairness....

ComplaintTalkback – Radio Pacific – host rude to callers FindingsPrinciple 1 – no tape – reported remarks not exceptional in talkback context – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Talkback discussion about equestrian Mark Todd’s alleged cocaine use was broadcast on Radio Pacific on 6 July 2000 between 7. 00–8. 00am. The host supported Mr Todd. Alex Watson complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the host’s conduct had been objectionable. He cited some examples of callers being subjected to what he termed abusive treatment after expressing their views, and noted that although some callers had tried to remonstrate with the host, they had been cut off before they could speak. In his view, this was not part of free speech talkback, and did nothing for the reputation of the station....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Celebrity Treasure Island – question posed to contestant concerning “famous lesbian” – complainant alleged use of word in this context was breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsDeclined to determine – section 11(a) Broadcasting Act 1989 – isolated use of word “lesbian” does not raise issue of broadcasting standards – complaint trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Celebrity Treasure Island is a show in which New Zealand celebrities are “castaways” on a tropical island and vie for prizes for their nominated charities. [2] In an episode screened on 8 August 2004 at 7:30 pm, one of the contests was a quiz based around a “fishy” theme....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintThe Panel – promo – panellist mocked Princess Margaret – breach of good taste FindingsStandard G2 – not a breach of good taste – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A promo for the programme The Panel, broadcast on TV3 on 31 May 2001, included a segment where panellist Pam Corkery pointed to a photograph of Princess Margaret from The New Zealand Herald and said, "Princess Margaret wore dark glasses and appeared to be able to see", before bursting into laughter. Mrs Sonia Reardon complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was a breach of good taste and decency for the panellist to make a mockery of Princess Margaret....

SummaryHost John Banks described parking wardens as "low lifes" in his programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 26 August 1999 at about 8. 15am. Adele Baulch complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that as a former parking warden she found the comment objectionable. She sought a public apology from Mr Banks to all parking wardens in New Zealand. The broadcaster responded that no malice had been intended by the remark but admitted that the host’s language had been "a little strong". It apologised for distress caused to the complainant, and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with The RadioWorks’ decision, Mrs Baulch referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. DecisionThe members of the Authority have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – promo broadcast during 3 News- showed one character asking another to "unbutton your shirt and your pants" – overweight male character shown standing naked in a fountain with his stomach covering his genitals – character shown in another scene bending over and having his bottom pinched by his female boss who said, "Yeah, this is going to work out just fine", after which a fart sound was heard and the woman said "excuse me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo was good natured, did not contain adult themes, and was correctly classified – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-054:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-054 PDF314. 43 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-001:Cowan and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-001 PDF262. 35 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-043:Costello and Pirate 99FM - 1991-043 PDF258. 09 KB...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mark Richardson’s response to a gift from a guest on The AM Show breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. Noting contextual factors, including audience expectations of the programme and of Mr Richardson, the Authority did not consider that Mr Richardson’s comments were likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, undermine widely shared community standards or adversely affect children. The Authority also did not uphold a complaint that a discussion about beer brands breached the alcohol standard. While the Authority found that the positive comments regarding Peroni could be regarded as promotion of the Peroni brand, the Authority considered that any promotion of alcohol was socially responsible in the context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Alcohol...