Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved an Alzheimer’s sufferer who enlisted the help of his son to capture, torture and kill young blonde women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – violence was graphic and deeply disturbing – amounted to stronger material which warranted AO 9. 30pm classification – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – programme should have been broadcast later – warning was not adequate – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme material warranted higher classification – warning was inadequate – level of violence and menacing themes were more extreme than in other 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Harry – fictional crime drama series set in South Auckland in which a detective investigated a spate of robberies – allegedly in breach of standards relating to discrimination and denigration, law and order, good taste and decency, violence, and accuracyFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama (guideline 7a) – programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, South Pacific people as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – depiction of criminal activity in fictional drama did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content brief and inexplicit – acceptable in the context of AO-rated programme broadcast at 9....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-063:Milnes and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-063 PDF445. 85 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-011:Town and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-011 PDF499. 97 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

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....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryDuring the course of the evening’s broadcast on The Rock on 28 June 1999, reference was made to a computer image of "a Dalmatian shagging a chick" and an All Black’s sexual orientation. The word "fuck" was used on several occasions in a broadcast on The Rock during the evening two weeks earlier – on 14 June 1999 – and a female caller who objected to being called "a dozy bitch" was told to "fuck off" if she did not like it. Mr Bartlett complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that it had breached the Broadcasting Act by using discriminatory, unfair and indecent language. He cited a number of specific instances which he asked the station to address. The station’s programme director responded that the show was targeted at an audience of males aged between 18–39 years and that its style appealed to them....

ComplaintTarget – description of house cleaner as tradesperson – denigration of tradespeople – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – offensive Findings (1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – no uphold (3) Standard G4 – no unfairness – no uphold (4) Standard G13 – no denigration or discrimination – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 at 7. 00pm on 14 May 2000 featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial. One of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour....

SummaryA news item broadcast by National Radio at 6. 00pm on 5 November 1998 concerned an appeal against life imprisonment by one of Britain’s "Moors" murderers, Myra Hindley. In his letter of complaint to the broadcaster, Radio New Zealand Ltd, Mr Butler wrote that the item appeared to have been selected for broadcast because of its prurient nature and, as the murders were committed 30 years ago in England, he contended that they were no longer of any interest to New Zealanders. He expressed particular concern about what he believed to be gratuitous detail about the murders at the conclusion of the item. The concluding statement, he reported, had included the words "they tortured some of their victims and recorded their screams". RNZ advised that it did not consider Mr Butler’s letter of complaint to be a formal one....

ComplaintMarathon Man – film – offensive language – warning ought to have been broadcast – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The movie Marathon Man was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on 22 May 2002. [2] Mrs M Charlton complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the movie contained offensive language, and that viewers ought to have been warned about its use. [3] Prime upheld the complaint and apologised to the complainant. It explained that appropriate staff had been reminded of Prime’s collective responsibility "with emphasis placed on not making assumptions on behalf of viewers and that warnings must be specific in nature". [4] Dissatisfied with the action taken in response to her complaint, Mrs Charlton referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintOne News – offensive language – film title – 'shagged' FindingsStandard G2 – decline to determineCross ReferencesDecision No: 1999-163 and No: 2000-056 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An actor from the film "Austin Powers – The Spy who Shagged me" was interviewed on Holmes on 9 February 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item included audio and video clips from the film and the word "shagged" appeared in a graphic containing the film’s title. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "shagged" was an "offensive, aggressive, macho anti-woman term" and should not have been promoted in an item which was "irresistible to all members of the family, including impressionable children"....

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 Host Ritchie Watson told a caller to Radio Pacific to "take a swallow of the body of Christ and have a few gins with it" during his talkback programme broadcast on 23 October 1999 between 11. 00–12. 00pm. Terry Ryan complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that the remarks, which were addressed to him, were a serious breach of decency and good taste. The RadioWorks advised that the remark was unacceptable and reported that the host had apologised and indicated that he had not realised that such comments would offend. It responded that the reference to "having a few gins" had been unacceptable, but did not find that it breached the good taste requirement. Dissatisfied with the station's response, Mr Ryan referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-124:Brandon and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1993-124 PDF311. 4 KB...

Following an interview with Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, Mike Hosking, on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show, replayed the interview and commented on the length of a pause during the interview. In doing so, Hosking questioned whether it was a ‘pause or a gabble’ and included sound effects of trucks passing and a turkey gobbling to ‘measure’ the pause. The complainants allege this second segment breached five standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it belittled the Associate Health Minister. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards and was not unfair to the Associate Health Minister. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld four complaints about a segment on The AM Show, which featured host Duncan Garner criticising parents who do not vaccinate their children, using terms such as ‘murderers’ and ‘bloody idiots’, and stating they should be ‘stripped of their right to spread their message and their viruses’. The Authority found that, taking into account audience expectations of Mr Garner and The AM Show, alongside other contextual factors, Mr Garner’s comments did not breach broadcasting standards. With regard to the balance standard, the Authority found that, while the anti-vaccination movement was a controversial issue of public importance, Mr Garner’s comments did not amount to a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard, but reflected his own personal views on the issue....