Search

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on bullying at Massey High School – contained repeated footage of girls fighting – item was not preceded by a warning – parents and students interviewed expressed dissatisfaction at how the school had handled the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – students shown in the footage were not identifiable beyond those who would have already known about the altercation – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item did not present itself as a follow-up to the previous story on bullying and was not unfair to X, his parents or Massey in this respect – impression created about fighting and bullying at Massey was not the result of unfairness but stemmed from the facts of the incident and the response of students and parents…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a panel discussion on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show about the government’s funding of America’s Cup campaigners, one of the panellists said ‘fucking’. She immediately apologised for the slip-up, and the other participants rebuked her in a light-hearted manner. The broadcaster upheld the complaint and counselled the panellist. The Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. It noted the comment was made during a legitimate discussion about a matter of public interest, and all of the participants acknowledged at the time that the swearing was inappropriate....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Police Ten 7 – “Bad boys” episode looked at “bad boys’ most memorable moments” – contained coarse language and nudity which were censored – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – content would not have been unexpected in a long-running reality series about the work of the police – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme preceded by clear warning advising parental guidance – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – Valentine’s Day “Win a Divorce” promotion – broadcast was sabotaged by participants – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – concept of the promotion was not reflected in the broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] The Rock radio station ran a promotion called “Win a Divorce” which culminated in a broadcast during Robert and Jono’s Drive Show on the afternoon of 14 February 2012. The hosts rang a second participant on the instructions of the first, her partner, who allegedly wanted a divorce....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic – interviewee and reporter used the term “nutters” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – “nutters” used to refer to person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – viewers would have understood intended meaning of “nutters” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Futurama – animated cartoon contained sexual references and innuendo – allegedly in breach of children's interests and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children's interests) – episode contained sexual content that was not suitable for unsupervised child viewers and so incorrectly classified G – should have been classified PGR – broadcaster did not adequately consider children's interests when incorrectly classifying the episode and screening it in G time – upheld under both standards No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Futurama, an animated cartoon series, contained sexual references and innuendo. The episode was classified G (General) and screened on FOUR at 6. 30pm on Friday 31 May 2013....

Summary An episode of The Ricki Lake Show was screened on Labour Day - a public holiday. The episode was broadcast on TV2 on 25 October 1999, commencing at 2. 00pm. The programme was rated AO because it contained adult content. Ms Watkins complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that TVNZ breached broadcasting standards by broadcasting an AO classified programme before 8. 30pm on a public holiday. TVNZ agreed that the episode should not have been shown during PGR time. It said that the mistake occurred because its scheduler had not checked the schedule adequately, given that the date was a public holiday, and its new computer system had not prompted its scheduler that the show had been scheduled outside its time band. TVNZ upheld the complaint, apologised to the complainant, and advised that steps had been taken to ensure that the incident would not recur....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter referred to Tip Top ice cream competition and informed viewers how to enter – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – segment did not threaten objectives behind “responsible programming” – promotions of this nature are now commonplace – Broadcasting Act and standards as written do not contemplate this type of segment or give authority to address these issues – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching, in the manner envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During a segment on Breakfast, the presenter referred to a ‘Feel Tip Top Giveaway’ competition....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-036:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Canterbury Television Ltd - 1992-036 PDF264. 86 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On two occasions, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children could be listening. The comments were consistent with the expectations of Radio Hauraki’s adult target audience, and would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners. Both items were light-hearted and intended to be humorous rather than offensive. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In two separate items, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The first item was broadcast on 5 March 2014 at 7. 34am and the second item was broadcast on 27 March 2014 at 7. 50am....

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. ]3D reported on the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, and the stories of several girls and their families who believed that they had suffered serious health problems after being vaccinated. It also reported on the as-yet-unexplained sudden deaths of two girls who had recently received the vaccine. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the maker of Gardasil alleging that the programme misleadingly suggested that Gardasil was unsafe and thus deceived and disadvantaged the public when there was no evidential basis for doing so. The story was well-reported, was measured in its presentation and gave viewers a range of information, which enabled them to make up their own minds about the vaccine. The Authority emphasised the high public interest in the story and in giving a platform for minority voices to be heard....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-020:Fish and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-020 PDF465 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-040:Ross and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-040 PDF441. 51 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....