Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of talkback programme Canterbury Mornings expressed the view that parking wardens in Christchurch were ‘scum’ for ticketing people in the central city, after everything they had been through with the earthquakes. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments were unacceptable, irresponsible and denigrated parking wardens. The comments related to a legitimate issue and were well within the host’s right to free speech, especially given that talkback radio is recognised as a robust and opinionated environment. A caller also challenged the host, so listeners were given a countering perspective....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A promo for The Night Shift briefly showing a male and female passionately kissing screened during Shrek Forever After, which was classified G. The Authority upheld the complaint that the promo breached the responsible programming and children's interests standards, as the promo contained sexual material more properly falling within the PGR classification. The Authority did not make any order. Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children's Interests No Order Introduction [1] A promo for The Night Shift briefly showing a male and female passionately kissing screened during Shrek Forever After, which was classified G. 1 [2] Carol Henderson complained that it was inappropriate to show this promo for an AO programme during a G-rated movie and that it would have distressed and embarrassed children....

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....

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

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…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the upcoming flag referendum and featured an interview with an Australian advocate for changing the flag. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that presenter Mike Hosking ‘encouraged the New Zealand public to vote a certain way by reiterating his own prejudices and then using an Australian broadcaster to support his own views’. While Mr Hosking made his view in support of changing the flag known, the alternative view was adequately presented during the item. Given the widespread coverage of the flag referendum, viewers could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant perspectives on the issue, and would not have been deceived or disadvantaged as a result of this item. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp discussed the upcoming flag referendum....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintCrimeline – Radio Scenicland – weekly feature about police – reference to allegation about some questionable police practices in Greymouth – unfair comments in response – complainant obtained tape – part of broadcast missing – complainant later accepted that pause occurred when logging tape turned over FindingsPrinciple 7 – well-publicised matter dealt with responsibly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An allegation about corruption at the Greymouth Police Station made by two police officers was touched upon in Crimeline broadcast between 8. 30 - 9. 00am on 29 January 2002. Crimeline, broadcast on Radio Scenicland in Greymouth, is a weekly discussion with a police officer about Police activities in the region. [2] Nadine Thomas, one of two police officers who had made the allegations, complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster, that the comments had discredited them....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch, the host expressed frustration with the length of time it had taken police to decide whether to proceed with criminal investigations in relation to the collapse of the CTV building in the Christchurch earthquake. He said, ‘for Christ’s sake, police, you can do better than this’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of the word ‘Christ’ breached standards. The use of ‘Christ’ as an exclamation to express surprise or dismay has become an accepted part of colloquial speech and would not have offended most listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch, the host discussed the progress of an investigation into the collapse of the CTV building in the February 2012 Christchurch earthquake....

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 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – contained sexual content and innuendo – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content was subtle and inexplicit – nature of sexual innuendo would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldStandard 8 (responsible programming) – the episode was correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An episode of the cartoon comedy Family Guy was broadcast on FOUR at 7. 30pm on Thursday 20 October 2011....

ComplaintThe Bits in Between – sexual/adult themes – offensive – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the programme’s effect on children FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – PGR rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Bits in Between was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 24 September 2001. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained sexual themes which were outside accepted norms of good taste and decency. He also considered that the programme was incorrectly classified and that the broadcaster had not been mindful of the programme’s effect on children. [3] TV3 declined to uphold the complaint....

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. ] An item on The Paul Henry Show featured a recent Police press release about a so-called tourist who had reportedly been driving with a kayak attached width-ways to the roof of his car. The presenter commented that the man was ‘a bloody twat’ and that his actions ‘pissed him off’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the presenter’s choice of language and his denigration of foreign tourists. In the context of a late-night programme and the presenter’s well-known style, the language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency and ‘foreign tourists’ are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skins – programme about a group of teenagers in Britain – showed teenagers drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and taking drugs – contained sexual material, nudity, violence and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming, children’s interests, violence and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO9....

ComplaintFair Go – auction of house – sale fell through – house resold to unsuccessful bidder – unreasonable to charge two commissions – unfair – unbalanced Findings(1) Standard G4 – promo – unfair – uphold (2) Standard G4 – items explained issues fairly – no uphold – Standards G6, G7 G11(i) – subsumed No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Fair Go, a consumer advocate programme, is broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 30pm. In the episodes broadcast on 12 and 19 July 2000, it reported that the vendor of a house believed that he had been unfairly charged a second commission by real estate agents after a first sale had fallen through and a subsequent sale had been made. His belief was alluded to in a promo for Fair Go which was broadcast on a number of occasions....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-107 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN MALCOLM of Pukerau Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....