Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A character in a promo for Puberty Blues broadcast during ONE News referred to a ‘69er’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that it was gratuitous and irresponsible to screen this promo before 8. 30pm. The verbal reference to a ‘69er’ was fleeting and was not explained; inexplicit sexual material or innuendo is permissible during children’s normally accepted viewing times. Additionally, child viewers were likely to be supervised during the news. Overall the Authority found the broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers and the promo did not require a higher classification than PGR. Not Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests   Introduction [1] A clip from Puberty Blues was included in a promo for TV ONE’s Saturday programme line-up, broadcast during ONE News. During the promo one of the characters, a teenage girl, referred to a ‘69er’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News item covered a high-profile New Zealand equestrian’s reportedly controversial exclusion from Equestrian Sports New Zealand’s high performance squad. It included an interview with the head of ESNZ, and briefly showed a copy of the equestrian magazine Show Circuit on his desk. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached standards because it wrongly associated Show Circuit with ESNZ. The inclusion of the shot of the magazine was incidental to the story and did not suggest that Show Circuit supported ESNZ, as alleged. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming   Introduction [1] A 3 News item covered a high-profile New Zealand equestrian’s reportedly controversial exclusion from Equestrian Sports New Zealand’s high performance squad....

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…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking read out a letter from a disgruntled viewer about comments he had made during an earlier episode about music group One Direction. The letter contained numerous expletives which were 'beeped' out during the broadcast. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the 'disgusting' language was contrary to good taste and decency and children's interests. Beeping is a commonly employed broadcasting technique to mask potentially offensive language. While most viewers would have discerned what the words were, in the context of an unclassified current affairs programme targeted at adults, which is known for being humorous and at times provocative, the segment did not threaten standards....

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. 1990-026–027:New Zealand Business Roundtable and Treasury and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-026, 1990-027 PDF3. 73 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-115:Tawhai and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-115 PDF300. 14 KB...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintPromos – The Strip – sexual material – allegedly offensive – promos for AO programme screened in G and PGR time-bands – inappropriate FindingsStandard 1 – contextual factors – no uphold Standard 5 – not relevant – no uphold Standard 7 – majority – promos appropriately classified PGR – minority – inappropriate rating – classification code AO should have been used – two promos shown during 3 News – failed to comply with PGR time-band – uphold; majority – promo shown during 20/20 – complied with PGR time-band – no uphold – minority – inappropriate classification – breachNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Promos for The Strip were broadcast by TV3 at various times on 30 June, 1 and 6 July 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-064 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOWELANCO (NZ) LIMITED of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-105 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M D STEMSON of Coromandel Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-006 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by N E ARCHER of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

ComplaintOne News – complainant victim of rape and attempted murder in the United States – alleged offender arrested after 20 years because of DNA evidence – news item showed photo of complainant at time of offence – breach of privacy – community standards not maintained – item caused unnecessary distress – item involved unnecessary intrusion into grief of the complainant and her family FindingsPrivacy – complainant not identified – no uphold Standard G2 – images not breach of community standards in context Standard G16 – issues better addressed under G17 Standard G17 – intrusion into grief took place – but valid news item and item did not include gratuitous detail – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The complainant, a New Zealand woman, was the victim of a rape and other serious violent offences in the United States....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Pirates – hosts discussed the act of people photocopying their naked bottoms on the office photocopier – one of the hosts photocopied his bottom on the radio station's photocopying machine and encouraged listeners to do the same – host invited listeners to exchange photocopies with him via facsimile – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – hosts' actions were inoffensive and harmless – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Morning Pirates breakfast show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 7....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Dexter promo – contained footage of upcoming episodes with themes of murder and torture – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo contained adult themes – incorrectly classified PGR – content warranted an AO classification – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo incorrectly classified – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 8 and 9 Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....