Search Rapua

Summary "Six Days in a Leaky Boat" was the name of the documentary broadcast on Inside New Zealand on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 24 March 1999. It featured six people in their twenties who were sailing a yacht in the Bay of Islands, and who had never met before. They were required to perform a number of objectives in difficult circumstances. Mr Stewart complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used and behaviour shown in a programme about boating was unacceptable and in breach of the standards. Furthermore, he wrote, the "foul" language used was advanced as acceptable, which amounted to a deceptive programme practice. Explaining that the programme was about the relationships between six people in their twenties who were required to perform difficult tasks, TV3 said that the unscripted programme captured their reactions....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-084 Dated the 1st day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ELIZABETH PATON-SIMPSON of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item covered the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court explaining how his relationship with Ms Elliott began – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of relationship were not sufficiently explicit to require a warning – high degree of public interest – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – deceased person not an “individual” for the purposes of Broadcasting Act 1989 – privacy standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 9 July 2009, covered the day’s events at the trial of Clayton Weatherston, who was accused of murdering Sophie Elliott....

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – report on Cindy Crawford – item contained photos of her from Playboy magazine in which her breasts were shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards The Authority's DecisionStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – majority – item did not dwell on the pictures in a salacious way – the pictures were tasteful and relevant to the context of the item – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – photographs were an artful depiction of the female form – no emphasis was placed on Ms Crawford’s breasts – sufficient consideration given to the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs programmes are unclassified – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryThe film Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man was broadcast on TV2 on 7 October 1999, beginning at 11. 00pm. It was an action movie in which two men stole mob money to prevent their friend’s bar from being closed down. Laurie Collier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language and "gross violence" contained in the film breached broadcasting standards. In particular, he complained about the excessive use of the "f word" and what he called "the blood and guts violence". TVNZ’s informal response emphasised the relevance of context in ascertaining whether the language exceeded community expectations. When Mr Collier sought a review of TVNZ’s decision, it provided a more substantive response, again emphasising contextual factors. It noted that the film began at 11. 00pm, well into adult viewing time, that it was preceded by a warning, and that it was classified as AO....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tiger’s Tail – movie contained scene which combined sex and violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order and violence FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – guideline 10c – depiction of rape required pre-broadcast warning – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – movie did not glamorise rape, or otherwise promote or condone rape – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Tiger’s Tail was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 31 October 2010....

ComplaintSpin Doctors Election Special – drama – public relations company, satirised while suggesting election campaign strategies – "piss-head" – offensive language – imitation vomit – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for older children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election special episode of Spin Doctors was broadcast at 9. 00pm on TV One on 10 July 2002. It satirised the staff of a public relations company as they were shown trying to put together election campaign strategies for a number of political parties. [2] Elaine Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about some of the language used and the behaviour depicted with reference to the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister deserved respect, not ridicule....

ComplaintAmerican Sex – nudity and sexual activity – no educational value – sensational and offensive FindingsStandard G2 – AO rating – clear warning – broadcast at 9. 30pm – activity involved consenting adults – not gratuitous – majority – no uphold Standard G12 – not naturally accepted viewing times for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of American Sex was broadcast on TV3 between 9. 30 – 10. 30pm on Saturday 9 December 2000. The series was publicised as a light-hearted look at the American sex industry. Mr Harang complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the programme included scenes of naked women and sexual activity, it was offensive and unsuitable for children. TV3 responded that American Sex screened an hour after the AO watershed and was preceded by a written and verbal warning....

ComplaintFor Richer or Poorer – movie – "fuck off" – offensive language – insufficient warning FindingsStandard G2 – language not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G8 – classification and time of screening appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary For Richer or Poorer was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 29 April 2001. For Richer or Poorer is a comedy movie about a rich couple who hide among the Amish to avoid pursuit by the tax department. During one scene, the wife tells her husband to "fuck off". Ken and Jackie Francis complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that the language was offensive, and that the warning for "coarse" language which had preceded the broadcast had been insufficient....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the outbreak of a cattle disease on a farm in South Canterbury. The item featured an interview with a farmer who used the expression ‘for Christ’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this expression was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times. The Authority found there was public interest and high value in hearing an authentic voice from a New Zealand farmer as part of the news report. The Authority also noted it has consistently found that variations of ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations, and in this case, the interviewed farmer used the phrase to express his frustration and strong support of the affected farm owner....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for the latest season of 7 Days showed comedians featured on the programme preparing the show’s host for the ‘potentially hostile environment’, by heckling and pelting him with objects. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promo trivialised the issue of bullying. The promo was a parody sketch of the type of heckling typically made by contestants during an episode of 7 Days, and common to live comedy programmes of this genre. It sought to recreate this live comedy environment in a humorous, satirical and highly exaggerated way, and in this context, the promo did not condone, encourage or trivialise bullying behaviour....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-005:Georgeson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-005 PDF365. 46 KB...

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...

SummaryA radio station announcer, claiming he was doing a survey on STDs, telephoned a woman and asked a number of personal and intimate questions. The call was broadcast live on The Edge on 30 November 1998 at about 4. 00pm. J, the woman who received the call, had identified herself using her first name and employer’s name. She complained to the station that the call was a serious invasion of her privacy as she was never told that the caller was from a radio station, or that it was being broadcast live. J said the comments ranged from being personal to obscene, and cited some examples. When the matter was referred to the station initially, J received an apology both from the station manager and the announcer....

Summary Radio Sport host, Martin Devlin, complained on air that he had been treated like a schoolboy by the manager of the New Zealand Cricket Team, John Graham. Mr Mee complained to The Radio Network of New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that a subsequent caller, commenting on Mr Devlin’s treatment by Mr Graham, was dealt with in an "abusive and contemptuous" way by Mr Devlin. The exchange was broadcast on Radio Sport on 23 August 1999, at about 9. 15am. TRN responded to Mr Mee’s complaint that the caller was a regular who would have been aware that he was entering a "robust arena" in calling the station’s talkback show. It also suggested that the caller might have incited Mr Devlin’s "strong" response. It declined to uphold Mr Mee’s complaint. Dissatisfied with TRN’s decision, Mr Mee referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interviewee’s language, broadcast during an item on Morning Report on 10 December 2018, was violent and inappropriate. The item reported on the declining memberships of sports clubs in New Zealand and featured an interview with the Club Captain of a tennis club. The interviewee commented that the tennis courts were so empty ‘you could… fire a machine gun and hit no one. ’ The Authority noted that the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in their own words, provided this does not cause undue harm. In this case, the comment made by the interviewee was brief, was not overly graphic or targeted at a particular individual or group, and was not intended to be taken literally....

A complaint regarding a comment made by radio host Chris Lynch in relation to a news report that Whakaari was going to receive a blessing in the wake of the fatal volcanic eruption has not been upheld. The Authority found that considering the relevant contextual factors, Mr Lynch’s comment ‘because that’s going to change everything isn’t it? ’ was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress. The Authority also noted that, while the comment had the potential to offend some listeners, comments will not breach the discrimination and denigration standard simply because they are critical of a particular group, because they offend people, or because they are rude. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...