Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about recent release of controversial Barbie doll – panellist suggested there was a market in the Muslim world for “terrorist Barbie”, and in response the host suggested “suicide bomber Barbie” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists were offering commentary and opinion in a satirical manner, making the point that the marketers of Barbie dolls were smart to release controversial Barbies – comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Muslims as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were light-hearted and intended to be satirical/a joke – most viewers would not have been offended or distressed by the comments taking into account the context – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive – host and producer referred to rugby players as “Jesus” and “God” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – use of “Jesus” and “God” to compliment rugby players would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context – comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive on Radio Sport, the host and producer discussed the selection of the All Blacks training squad, including a rookie, Steven Luatua, who played for the Auckland Blues....

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

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-058 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANN GILLANDERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary An episode of Hollywood Sex, a two-part series dealing with the sex industry in Hollywood, was broadcast on TV2 on 2 September 1999 beginning at 9. 30pm. Rosemary McElroy, on behalf of Women Against Pornography, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that in spite of the warning preceding the programme, the average adult viewer would not have expected what she described as the degree of "pornographic" content which it contained. She contended that the programme breached accepted norms of good taste and decency, and cited several examples of what she considered to be objectionable material. TVNZ noted that various aspects of the sex industry had been depicted, and that the emphasis had been on the curious and grotesque. While the nature of the sexual activity discussed had been indicated, there had been no scenes of sexual intercourse or any full frontal nudity, it observed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nestle New Zealand’s Hottest Home Baker – baking competition – contestant exclaimed, “Oh my ring went into the cream! ” – host replied, “Usually it’s the other way round” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was fleeting and unclear – programme broadcast in AO time – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – rest of the material was acceptable in a G programme – comment would have gone over the heads of child viewers – correctly rated G – screened outside of children’s viewing times – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Nestle New Zealand’s Hottest Home Baker was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on Thursday 25 February 2010....

SummaryReferences to sexual activity were made in an episode of Dharma and Greg broadcast on TV2 on 4 November 1998 at 7. 30pm. Two different couples were said to have had sex in a public place. Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such explicit programme content was unsuitable for broadcast before 8. 30pm. He lamented a decline in standards which he noted had occurred in recent years, and sought to have all references to sex excluded from any PGR programme. At the outset, TVNZ noted that no sexual activity was shown in the programme, but was only implied in the action and dialogue. It acknowledged that the programme was more suited to adult audiences, but did not accept that it was unsuitable for children who were watching under the guidance of an adult....

ComplaintsOne News – Late Edition – same item – person with cholesterol level of 43 – described as walking time-bomb – healthy level said to be between 3 and 5 – controversial – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – not controversial issue – no uphold Standard G6 – not controversial issue – no uphold Standard G14 – comment in passing on healthy level – no uphold Standard G16 – comment encouraged concern but not unnecessarily alarmist – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A man with a high level of cholesterol was interviewed on One News, broadcast between 6. 00 and 7. 00pm on TV One on 28 December 2001. The item described the man with a level of 43 as a "walking time-bomb", and the "healthy" level was said to be "between three and five"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of bare breasts and buttocks, and brief frontal shots of two naked women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of naked women not sexualised or intended to titillate – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – programme was appropriately classified PGR – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 August 2007, contained video footage of a number of women featuring bare breasts, buttocks and two brief full frontal shots of naked women....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Build a New Life in the Country – contained coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Action Taken – broadcaster upheld the complaint, apologised and took steps to prevent future mistakes – action taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Build a New Life in the Country (rated G) was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Saturday 7 June 2008. The series followed British couples as they pursued their dream homes and lifestyles. In the 7 June episode, Jason and Phillipa had bought a chateau in France and planned to renovate it and open it as a bed and breakfast. The episode tracked their progress over nine months. [2] At approximately 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – footage from British reality series Sex Inspectors included a couple engaged in various sexual acts – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification and programme information standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – warning sufficient – not upheld Standards 2–6 and 8 – complaint based on mistake – not relevant – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 14 December 2004 the presenter of Eating Media Lunch on TV2 introduced a segment which was to feature in the following episode. Brief footage from a British reality series called Sex Inspectors was shown, including a couple engaged in various sexual acts....

Complaint The Edge – "The Help Desk" – afternoon broadcast – beginning at secondary school – stories about initiation rites – encouraged bullyingFindingsPrinciple 7 – conflicting views of the attitude displayed by announcer – no tape – unsatisfactory – no option but to decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "The Help Desk", broadcast on The Edge on the afternoon of the week beginning 28 January 2002, invited callers to phone in and relate stories about starting at secondary school. [2] Ruth McLean complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the stories involved initiation practices, bullying, intimidation, and violence towards third formers. The announcer, she added, seemed to find the stories entertaining. Moreover, his attitude had encouraged bullying and his lack of social responsibility breached broadcasting standards....

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....

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practiceFindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryBrent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits Invercargill had failed to cover the activities of an Invercargill businessman who had been charged with fraud. He contended that in this omission the broadcaster had failed to show balance and had used deceptive programming practice in its broadcasts during the period of newsworthiness, notably between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, responded for both stations that broadcasting standards were not breached as the story in question had not been broadcast. Dissatisfied with TRN’s response, Mr Procter referred the complaints 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 1989Date My Ex – reality series broadcast at 3pm contained footage of people drinking alcohol – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, liquor and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – presence of liquor in the programme was extremely brief and alcohol consumption was not glamorised – content did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly rated PGR – did not contain any material which warranted a higher rating of AO – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme’s content would not have offended the majority of viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overgrown – cannabis law reform-themed radio show advocated cannabis use – host referred to a phone call from a general practitioner and made comments about the views he allegedly expressed – allegedly in breach of standards relating to law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not named and unlikely to be identified from the limited information broadcast – host’s comments did not reach the necessary threshold to be considered unfair to the complainant – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – while the programme encouraged and promoted cannabis use this was in the spirit of protest and to promote law reform – value of speech important – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – Overgrown was not a “factual programme” to which the standard applied – show was opinion-based and…...

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. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....