Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-018 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDDIE HAYES of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster RADIO OTAGO LTD TRADING AS 93 FM, HASTINGS J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a report regarding a heckler at a press conference by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, as the balance standard did not apply. It also found a report featuring footage of beach handball players’ uniforms did not breach the good taste and decency standard as the clip was not likely to undermine current norms of good taste and decency and the footage was justified in context. Not Upheld: Balance, Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint Mo Show – interview with makers of and participants in a pornographic film – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – gratuitous sexual activities – uphold Standard 9 – not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The making of a pornographic film near Los Angeles was shown in a segment of the Mo Show broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 3 September 2002. The Mo Show is targeted at a young adult audience and features two New Zealand comedians presenting events they encounter in a number of countries, focusing on popular music and film. [2] Lois Durward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment about pornographic film-making near Los Angeles was offensive and unsuitable for younger viewers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jono’s New Show promo – man said “Fucken oath, look at him, what a fuckwit. Goes for a run and gets shot in the arse” – “fucken” and “fuckwit” were partially bleeped but words could still be distinguished – broadcaster upheld complaint under two standards – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency) and 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster upheld complaint under two standards and changed appraisal process – action taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Jono’s New Show was broadcast at approximately 6. 14pm on Sunday 14 September 2008 on C4. It included a man saying “Fucken oath, look at him, what a fuckwit. Goes for a run and gets shot in the arse”....

SummaryIn a prank telephone call broadcast on Solid Gold FM on 12 June 1998 at about 8. 25am, a woman was called by a man claiming to be her fiance’s boss and was told that he was going to be fired because he was sleeping with the boss’s secretary. The woman reacted with tearful remonstrations, but then admitted that she was having an affair with her fiance’s brother. Anrik Drenth of Wellington complained to the station that the call was distressing and offensive because it was malicious, and listeners were not informed at the conclusion that it was a prank. He noted that the woman had been clearly distressed by the news. In a brief response, the station advised that the call was a hoax and had been set up. It apologised if it caused offence....

SummaryTwo consecutive episodes of Shortland Street contained a story-line about a nine-year-old boy, previously diagnosed with leukaemia, suffering a relapse and needing further medical treatment. His "mother" was shown receiving medical advice that his chances of survival with a bone marrow transplant were about one in ten. In the next episode, the child was shown bleeding profusely from mouth and nose, because his blood was not clotting properly. The episodes were broadcast on TV2 on 29 and 30 April 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. L D Percy complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the portrayals had a frightening impact on family and child viewers, particularly children who had returned to normal lives after receiving treatment for leukaemia. The depictions should only have been shown in an AO-rated programme, if at all, L D Percy wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Futurama – animated cartoon series – contained sexual references – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy cartoon Futurama was broadcast on C4 at 7pm on Wednesday 27 May 2009. The show revolved around the main character Fry, who was cryogenically frozen in 1999 and then thawed 1,000 years later. The episode began with a flashback to New York in 1999 and showed Fry delivering a pizza to the local television station, which was showing a fictional programme called Single Female Lawyer....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Line of Beauty – episode of programme about a young gay Oxford graduate included homosexual sex scenes – allegedly breached standards 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 the drama Line of Beauty was broadcast at 11. 50pm on TV One on Sunday 28 October 2007. Line of Beauty followed a young, gay, middle class Oxford graduate Nick who was invited to live with a wealthy and politically powerful family in the 1980s. [2] This episode contained several sex scenes. In one scene, Nick watched as his boyfriend and another man appeared to engage in oral sex....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of the Larry Williams Drive Show and a political editor discussed a protest that had taken place in response to the release of the Government’s budget. The host expressed his disapproval of the protestors and made comments about how he thought they should be dealt with, for example saying fire trucks cornering them from either end of the street. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments breached standards. The host was clearly expressing his personal opinion, and the political editor countered the comments, noting people living in a democracy are entitled to protest....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....

ComplaintThe Heat – announcer named manager and referred to staff of Classic Hits abusively and as fuckwits – broadcaster upheld complaint – written apology insufficient. FindingsAction taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of apology This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Between 5. 30–6. 00pm on Saturday 30 June 2001, an announcer on The Heat named the manager of Classic Hits 99FM in Timaru and referred abusively to him, and to his staff. They were described on air as "fuckwits" and listeners were invited to phone Classic Hits and tell them what they thought of them. Garey Hanifin, Manager of Classic Hits 99FM in Timaru, complained to The Heat that the comments amounted to a "gross breach" of broadcasting standards. The Heat upheld the complaint. It accepted that the remarks were unfair and uncalled for, and apologised by letter....

SummaryWWF Raw and WWF Summerslam were broadcast consecutively on TV4 on 11 September 1999, from 8. 30pm to12. 00am. These programmes featured professional wrestling bouts which had been staged in front of live audiences. Mr Bridgman, Ms Crombie, Mr Little and Mr Bonner complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that aspects of the behaviour shown in the programmes breached programme standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination against women, and the effect of programmes on children and violence. TV3 explained that the "fights" in the programmes were choreographed, not real. It described the WWF shows as "neither sport nor drama but a kind of pageant" which it compared to a magic show. TV3 rejected every aspect of the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, the complainants referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint60 Minutes – promo – clip of Norm Hewitt – use of word "shit" – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – breach of classification codes and time bands – not mindful of the effect on children – explicit material unacceptable in a promo FindingsStandard G2 – quietly used vernacular figure of speech – context – no uphold Standard G8 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard G12 – important social message for younger viewers – no uphold Standard G24 – no violence or other explicit material – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the current affairs programme 60 Minutes contained a 30-second clip of professional rugby player, Norm Hewitt. It was broadcast on 20 October 2001 at 6. 35pm during One News....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now – spoof of talent shows called "Fairytale's Got Talent" – guest judge said to Cinderella who was a contestant, "Next time I'm holding one of my balls, you're invited" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – child viewers would have understood the comment to be a reference to the Cinderella fairytale – comment did not go beyond the programme's G rating – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During What Now, broadcast on TV2 at 8am on Sunday 15 August 2010, the programme's hosts and two former New Zealand Idol judges, Paul Ellis and Frankie Stevens, participated in a spoof of television talent contests, called "Fairytale's Got Talent". A contestant, Cinderella, performed on the saxophone....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – included shot of topless woman – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – part of unclassified current affairs programme aimed at adults – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Campbell Live unsupervised – children not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Friday 17 December 2010, the programme’s reporters each had one minute to review the stories they had worked on during the year 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a late night talkback programme with a fill-in host, a caller expressed her attitude to the Royal family by reference to what she described as ‘Charles raping Diana’. The host challenged this and asked her what she meant. She spoke about how the Queen ‘devised the “three in the bed” scenario’ and how she felt sorry for Diana. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to rape was unacceptable and the host should have terminated the call. It appeared the caller did not mean ‘rape’ in the literal sense, the conversation was not unduly offensive in the context of a late night talkback programme, and the host acted responsibly by asking the caller to clarify her point....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-051:Pownall and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-051 PDF483. 04 KB...