Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 154 /95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D F HARVEY of Lower Hutt Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

Summary An item on Breakfast broadcast on TV One at about 7. 40 am on 9 July 1998 reviewed the contents of leading women’s magazines published during that week. A studio guest referred to Paula Yates, who was featured in a magazine, and commented that Yates was known largely "for shagging the famous". Mr Yoxall complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the remark was vulgar, and an unacceptable breach of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that the context of the remark was that the live studio broadcast was as tabloid as the magazines it reviewed. The comment was the guest’s genuinely-held opinion, and reflected a widely-held view of Yates. It was delivered in a light-hearted, laconic manner and, although unfortunate in view of Yates’ apparent attempted suicide, did not breach the standard, TVNZ wrote....

SummaryA repeat broadcast of the programme Who Dares Wins was broadcast on TV2 on 10 December 1998 at 7. 30pm. A Melbourne man responded to a dare to appear on stage with the male revue troupe Manpower. Ms Dawn Shelford of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, on behalf of the group Preserving Communication Standards. In her view the broadcast was offensive, particularly during family viewing time. In its response, TVNZ noted that the programme complained about had been the subject of an earlier complaint to the Authority which had not been upheld. It advised that the arguments it advanced then remained valid. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Shelford 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....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a segment on 7 Days which made a joke referring to a picture of Prince Philip, shortly after his death. The Authority found the segment did not contain any material outside of what viewers could reasonably expect from the programme (as a long-running comedy show based on finding comedic elements in the news of the week, audiences are well-familiar with its format and style of content and humour), and did not cause any harm justifying the restriction of freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the movie Fifty Shades Darker was in breach of standards because it glorified a manipulative and abusive relationship. The Authority found viewers were sufficiently informed about the nature of the content to enable them to manage their own viewing. The movie did not contain any content that would go beyond audience expectations for the classification and timeband, especially given the well-publicised nature of the movie. The movie did not encourage violent or law-breaking activity. Finally, the Authority also found that people who engage in BDSM (a sexual practice that involves the use of physical control, psychological power, or pain) are not a recognised group for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the second part of a two-part documentary, Leaving Neverland, concerning sexual abuse allegations made by two men against Michael Jackson. The Authority took into account the nature of the programme, which was clearly presented from the perspectives of the two men featured and included responses to these and similar allegations, from Michael Jackson and his lawyers. In this context, the Authority found: the broadcast would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress as contemplated under the good taste and decency standard; the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not address a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ for New Zealand viewers; the programme was unlikely to mislead viewers and did not breach the accuracy standard; and the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘douche’ following an interview with Hannah Tamaki breached the good taste and decency standard. The complaint was that Mrs Tamaki was referred to as a ‘douche’, which was not an acceptable way to refer to a woman. The Authority noted that the word was used on two occasions. The first use of the word originated from audience feedback saying Mrs Tamaki was ‘on the same page as [Donald Trump]; and that ‘Trump’s a douche’. The host’s later comment promoting an upcoming item – ‘from douches to [chef] Nadia Lim’ – was ambiguous as to whether or not it was intended to refer to Mrs Tamaki. In any event, the Authority did not consider the use of the word threatened community standards of good taste and decency in the context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]3 News reported on a gun attack on a Tunisian beach resort, and showed amateur video footage of the event. The footage contained images of people shouting and running around in confusion, and gunshots and bomb blasts could be heard. The footage also showed the gunman lying in the street after he had been shot dead by police. The Authority upheld a complaint that this footage was disturbing and should have been preceded by a warning. While recognizing the high public interest in the story and the footage, viewers were not given a reasonable opportunity to exercise discretion because they were not adequately warned of its nature. The Authority did not make any order....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two episodes of Story featured items about self-described ‘professional political campaigner’ Simon Lusk. In the first item, presenter Duncan Garner was shown hunting with Mr Lusk, and Mr Lusk apparently shot two deer. Excerpts of political figures being interviewed about their involvement with Mr Lusk, and of Mr Lusk discussing such involvement, were shown throughout the items. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the items were in breach of multiple broadcasting standards for the way Mr Lusk’s involvement in politics was reported and for featuring footage of deer hunting. The footage of the deer hunting was not so graphic or gratuitous that it would have offended a significant number of viewers, including child viewers....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on The Paul Henry Show featured the two presenters discussing recent law changes in Russia that mean it is now illegal to misrepresent Russia’s involvement in World War II, and that people would be fined for swearing on television, in theatre or in films. Mr Henry gave examples of Russian swearwords. There was also a discussion about ‘butt plugs’ made in the likeness of Vladimir Putin and of Paul Henry. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the language, the references to Russia’s involvement in the war, and the discussion about ‘butt plugs’ were offensive. The segment was on late at night and targeted at adults, it was intended to be light-hearted and was consistent with expectations of the show and of Paul Henry....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A host on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated was required to argue that free-range eggs were ‘penis’ (stupid or absurd). The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were disgusting and unsuitable for broadcast in the middle of the day. While parts of the broadcast were crude, the content did not go beyond audience expectations of Radio Hauraki or this programme. Most regular listeners would have taken the comments as humorous and light-hearted, and would not have been unduly offended. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] In a regular segment called ‘Penis or Genius’ on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated, one of the hosts was required to argue that free-range eggs were ‘penis’ – used by the programme to denote something that is ‘stupid’ or ‘absurd’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-013:Jensen and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-013 PDF279. 29 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-011:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-011 PDF516. 75 KB...

Summary An Assignment programme broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 15 July 1999 examined a theory which linked those who abused animals in their youth to violent offences in later years. The documentary included video footage of teenage boys tormenting a dog. It was explained that they had filmed the video themselves. Joanne Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that she was disgusted that the programme included footage of boys subjecting a dog to torture. In her view, it violated the Code relating to the Portrayal of Violence. In addition, she noted that there had been no warning preceding the programme. TVNZ responded that the incident had been edited in such a way as to convey the cruelty inflicted on the animal while avoiding showing what actually occurred....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bones promo – scenes including a human skull hitting a car windscreen, a human skeleton on a table and two characters kissing – dialogue about cannibalism – included on-screen graphics, one of which read “TV’s hottest crime scene” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – complaint related to programming content in general – decline to determine Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo incorrectly rated G – images were fleeting and inexplicit – broadcast was during an unclassified news programme – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....