Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Hauraki Amped – promotion for the chance to win a trip to Bangkok with reference to the film The Hangover Part II – stated “Hauraki’s going to send you and two mates to get your own hangover in Thailand” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to responsible programming and liquor FindingsStandard 9 (liquor) – brief reference to getting a “hangover” clearly related to The Hangover Part II film – did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comment acceptable in light of target audience – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Hauraki Amped, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 11am on Sunday 1 May 2011, included an item promoting the chance to win a trip to Bangkok, the setting for the film The Hangover Part II....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item about strip club contained brief footage of woman wearing a G-string dancing erotically on a pole – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was very brief and had some relevance to the subject matter – programme was broadcast more than two hours after the Adults Only watershed – majority of viewers would not have been offended in this context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Nightline followed up an earlier report on a “strip club turf war” in Wellington involving opposition from strip club operators and the police to a new entrant to the city’s entertainment area....

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....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-095:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-095 PDF676. 46 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-066:...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-007:Wright and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-007 PDF444. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-051:Greer and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-051 PDF815. 03 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw – interview with Sir Stephen Tindall – Sir Stephen made very brief reference to Joan Withers as a trustee of one of his projects – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Authority has previously declined to determine similar complaints from Mr Golden – complaint is trivial and bordering on vexatious for Mr Golden to continue referring similar complaints following Authority’s previous rulings – Authority declines to determine the complaint in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – segment was an attempt at humour and satire – the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context, was not socially irresponsible, and did not reach high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as 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 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 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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-034:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-034 PDF 335. 83 KB...

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....

ComplaintGoing Straight – documentary about curing homosexuals through Christian programme – inaccurate – unbalanced – discrimination against homosexuals Findings(1) Standard G6 – majority – documentary focussed on perspectives of those featured – no uphold (2) Standard G13 – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Going Straight was broadcast on Prime Television on 16 June 2000 at 8. 35pm. The programme was a documentary about gay men who were attempting to change their sexual orientation through a Christian programme run at Caleb House in Kansas. The New Zealand Aids Foundation, through its research director, Tony Hughes, complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced. In its view, an exclusively religious perspective on homosexuality had been presented....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Checkpoint – report stated that Queenstown may face an energy crisis in the future – the words electricity, energy and power were used interchangeably – allegedly in breach of balance, fairness, accuracy and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 6 (accuracy) – item was not deceptive – listeners would not have been misled – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – standard did not apply because the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard did not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....