Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-097:Collier and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-097 PDF266. 42 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding comments made by Louise Wallace about overweight people, during a panel discussion on AM. The complaint was that the comments were in extremely bad taste and denigrating and discriminatory towards ‘fat women’ in particular. The Authority accepted the comments clearly had the potential to offend. However, noting in particular that the programme hosts challenged Wallace’s comments and made countering remarks, the Authority concluded that the comments did not meet the high threshold for finding the broadcast caused harm at a level that justified regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, featured a photo of an alleged terrorist and host Paul Henry joking about the type of dialogue that would occur between members of a terrorist group. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that this promo was highly offensive ‘so soon after the Paris terrorist attacks’ and breached the controversial issues standard. The promo did not explicitly mention the Paris terrorist attacks, was apparently intended to be humorous (as the hosts were all shown laughing) and was consistent with expectations of the host programme. The promo also did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue which triggered the requirement to provide balance. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, showed a photo of an apparent terrorist....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 77/94 Dated the 8th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-031 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GORDON McKAY of Howick Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintSouth Park – necrophilia – offensive theme FindingsStandard G2 – offensive material notwithstanding context – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of South Park was broadcast on TV4 at 9. 00pm on 13 September 2001. South Park is a cartoon comedy series. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the "entire episode was based on the theme of necrophilia" (sex with a dead person), which he considered to be outside the accepted norms of taste and decency in the context of a comedy. [3] TV4 declined to uphold the complaint. It did not consider that the programme breached standards relating to good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TV4’s decision, Mr Hooker referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men and Scrubs promo – male character in Scrubs promo stated "I don’t like doing things I'm not good at", to which female character responded, "Yeah, that's why we don't have sex much" – male doctor in Scrubs promo talking to a female nurse said "My post-op is going in and out of consciousness. You know what I'd like to go in and out of?...

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – host introduced the episode by saying “Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother” – 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] Eating Media Lunch was a series broadcast on TV2 that lampooned aspects of the media both in New Zealand and overseas. The host introduced the episode broadcast at 10pm on Friday 2 November 2007 with the following words: Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother. [2] The episode was preceded by a verbal and visual warning which said: This programme is rated Adults Only. It contains language and sexual material that may offend some people. Complaint [3] Martin Taylor made a formal complaint about the introduction to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – episode contained violent scenes – man hit another’s head on a rock – man hit with baseball bat – unconscious man put in car and car set alight – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme contained disturbing adult themes and violence – unsuitable for children even when supervised by an adult – upheld by majority No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Shortland Street was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on Tuesday 2 September 2008. It began with a car chase involving one of the central characters, Dr Craig Valentine, who was eventually forced off the road and down a bank....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – comment from late-night talkback host about people from Christchurch “cuddling their sheep” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard as made reference to bestialityFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – Comment clearly intended to be humorous – no offensive language used – no direct reference to bestiality – comment very mild – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Shortly after midnight during the Radio Pacific late-night talkback show on 20 December 2004, the host, Miles Davis, stated that he did not intend to take any more calls from Christchurch residents, and that they should simply go to bed and “cuddle up to their sheep”. Complaint[2] Bruce Newburgh complained to Radio Pacific that the comment was in bad taste, as it implied that people from Christchurch practised bestiality....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog” – alleged frequent use of the word “fuck” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis 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 9. 30pm on 23 September 2005. During the introductory sequence, the host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog”. Complaint [2] Malcolm Anderson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference to “wanking off a dog” was disgusting, and in breach of good taste and decency....

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime Presents: The Grand Tour: Jeremy Wells and the NZSO – comments by presenter included references to sexual activity, nudity, and bodily functions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter was respectful overall towards the programme and the NZSO and helped to make it accessible to a wider audience – interviewees appeared comfortable with his style and entertained by him – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A documentary titled The Grand Tour: Jeremy Wells and the NZSO, was broadcast on Prime at 8. 35pm on Sunday 31 July 2011. It followed the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra (NZSO) on a tour to China and around Europe....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-168:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-168 PDF319. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-023:Burt and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-023 PDF293. 72 KB...

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. ]Saturday Morning featured a segment in which presenter Kim Hill interviewed former MP and spokesperson for lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, Dr Don Brash, about the use of te reo Māori in New Zealand, specifically in RNZ broadcasting, without translation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Dr Brash challenging and critical questions, Dr Brash had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view, and listeners would not have been left misinformed with regard to Dr Brash’s position. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Dr Brash’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Dr Brash being treated unfairly....