Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-102 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS NORMAN of Wellington Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LTD J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 82/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WHANAU SOCIAL SERVICES INC of Flaxmere Broadcaster TE REO IRIRANGI O NGATI KAHUNGUNU INC (Radio Kahungunu) J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

SummaryA BBC documentary entitled Ladies Night screened during Under Investigation on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 16 June 1998. The documentary concerned a male strip revue in the Welsh city of Swansea. Ms Wendy Atkinson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the documentary breached standards of good taste, and was entirely unsuitable for children and teenagers. TVNZ responded that the documentary was classified AO, had screened in an AO timeband, and that the introduction would have alerted viewers to the adult nature of the programme thus giving them the opportunity to decide not to watch. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Atkinson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. DecisionThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix)....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Muslim outrage caused by cartoons first published in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed – item concluded with satirical depiction of Jesus Christ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfair in that it encouraged the denigration of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – contrast in attitudes to freedom of speech about religious convictions is controversial issue of public importance – dealt with in balanced way in full item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – lampooning of Christians did not amount to blackening of reputation – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs not subject to classification system – warning was broadcast – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – warning included before current affairs item – not upheldThis headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Mike Yardley Mornings – Newstalk ZB – discussion about financial problems at Christchurch Hospital – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – balanced discussion in talkback context – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one comment about acute demand provision inaccurate – upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – balanced discussion in talkback context – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 29 April 2004, Newstalk ZB talkback host Mike Yardley introduced the Mike Yardley Mornings show with a discussion about financial problems at Christchurch hospital....

SummaryA repeat broadcast of the programme Who Dares Wins was broadcast on TV2 on 10 December 1998 at 7. 30pm. A Melbourne man responded to a dare to appear on stage with the male revue troupe Manpower. Ms Dawn Shelford of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, on behalf of the group Preserving Communication Standards. In her view the broadcast was offensive, particularly during family viewing time. In its response, TVNZ noted that the programme complained about had been the subject of an earlier complaint to the Authority which had not been upheld. It advised that the arguments it advanced then remained valid. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Shelford referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintThe Rock – Morning Rumble – competition – the worst things that had ever happened to you when you’ve been drinking – story about drunk youth – stripped – drawn on – urinated over – crutch pushed into rectum – photos taken – person embarrassed and later left school – encourages abuse FindingsPrinciple 1 – story offensive – uphold Principle 7 guideline 7b – 7. 15–8. 15am normally accepted listening time for children – uphold OrderCosts of $2,500 to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A competition entitled "The worst things that have ever happened to you when you’ve been drinking" was run on The Rock between 7. 15–8. 15am on 31 July 2001....

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 1989Jay-Jay, Mike & Dom Show – contained discussion about a controversial tweet by one of the hosts in which he said, “Girls rapping....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that an episode of Jeremy Kyle, a talk show dealing with relationship breakdowns between guests, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant’s objections related to the nature of the series in general, rather than specific content in this episode. While elements could have caused discomfort or distress for viewers, the episode was consistent with audience expectations of the talk show genre, was rated PGR and was broadcast at a time when AO programmes are permitted, during the school term, so children were unlikely to be watching....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-120:Moffatt-Vallance and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-120 PDF383. 9 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Cellularpromo – promo for AO-classified movie broadcast during PGR-rated animated movie – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children's interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo did not contain any AO material - promo correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate host programme – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children's interests in screening the promo during Ratatouille – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the movie Cellular was screened on TV2 on Saturday 14 August 2010, near the end of Ratatouille, an animated movie which was rated PGR and screened at 7. 30pm. Cellular was classified Adults Only and was broadcast at 9. 45pm after Ratatouille....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – 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: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint3 News – possible cure for cancer – deceptive – misleadingFindingsStandard G7 – not applicable Standard G11 – not applicable Standard G15 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A dietary supplement made from pig pancreatic enzymes was said to provide a possible cure for cancer, according to an item on 3 News broadcast on 11 May 2000 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Murray Tonks complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item lacked scientific credibility and that it was apparent that there was no independently verified research findings which backed the claims made. In his view, the item used a deceptive programme practice and was misleading, as it could have raised false hopes for cancer sufferers....