Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – news item reported investigation into allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by police officers – said woman claimed that serving police officers would arrive while on duty, use handcuffs and batons on her and that she was often strangled to the point of blacking out – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inappropriate for child listeners Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7b (child listeners) – contextual factors – broadcaster was mindful of child listeners – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on Radio New Zealand National’s Morning Report programme, broadcast at approximately 7....

ComplaintNew Rulers of the World – promo for the John Pilger documentary – answer to one question presented as answer to another – unfair and deceptive – complaint upheld – in-house action taken FindingsSerious breach – action taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The John Pilger documentary, The New Rulers of the World, was screened on TV One at 9. 45pm on 10 October 2001. In a promo broadcast earlier, Mr Fisher of the IMF was seen to respond to a statement from Mr Pilger saying "what are you asking me this question for". However, during the broadcast it was apparent that this response was made to another unrelated question. [2] P G Hatton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo, by using this editing practice, was unfair and lacked objectivity....

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"....

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....

ComplaintHolmes – cure for acne – drug identified – side effects not reported – misleading – unbalanced – partial FindingsStandard G6 – not controversial issue to which the standard applies – decline to determine; other standards not relevant ObservationIssue to be considered when free-to-air code is revised This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The availability of an effective treatment for acne was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 23 March 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. A dermatologist and a doctor were interviewed, as well as two young people who had both been successfully treated by a named drug. The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd (PHARMAC) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was misleading and unbalanced. In particular it expressed its concern that the broadcaster had been used to promote a prescription medicine....

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....

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

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sticky TV – contained episode of Wizards of Waverly Place – involved teenage characters talking about dating and kissing as well as two characters kissing – Sticky TValso contained a segment called “What Would You Do? ” in which a panel of young teenagers gave advice about kissing – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – Sticky TV correctly classified G – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programmes addressed contemporary issues facing teens – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sticky TV was broadcast on TV3 between 3. 30pm and 5pm on Tuesday 15 June 2010. Another programme called Wizards of Waverley Place was broadcast in segments as part of Sticky TV....

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…...

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Home and Away – programme classified G and broadcast at 5. 30pm contained storyline involving the date rape of a teenage girl – allegedly in breach of responsible programming, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – episode was unsuitable for unsupervised child viewers and incorrectly classified G – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Home and Away, an Australian soap opera, included a storyline that involved the date rape of a teenage girl. The episode was classified G and broadcast on TV3 at 5. 30pm on 11 April 2013. [2] David Simpson made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the episode was “highly offensive” and that themes of rape and HIV were inappropriate in a G-rated programme....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

ComplaintZG FM Gisborne – offensive language – "eff–off" – "piss off" – reference to complainant on air FindingsPrinciples 1 and 7 – in context – no uphold Principle 5 – reference ambiguous – no uphold CommentBroadcaster’s complaints procedure and process for recording programmes unsatisfactory This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During the morning programme on 22 September 2000, an announcer on Gisborne’s ZG FM said "eff-off". On 20 October he said that by playing a certain song, he would "piss off" some colleagues. After a listener called the station to complain about his language, the announcer made reference to her complaint on 25 October, saying "I can’t say ‘piss off’ or Mrs Pascall will get hacked off about it....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Bootylicious – PGR promo – broadcast during One News between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm – crass – objectified women’s bodies – timing of promo unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – promo for programme on recent fashion fad – did not threaten current norms of decency and taste – not upheld Standard 7 (appropriate classification) – promo classified “PGR News” – PGR appropriate classification – not upheld Standard 7 (compliance with classification band) and Guideline 7b – One News (although itself unclassified) is in G time-band – PGR promo did not comply with classification band – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster considered children’s interests in rating promo PGR – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold complaints that three broadcasts showing fishing and hunting were barbaric and cruel. As the Authority has noted in previous decisions on similar complaints from the complainant, killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life and her concerns are based primarily on personal lifestyle preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about three episodes of fishing and hunting programmes. In general, her complaints were that fishing and hunting are barbaric and cruel. More specifically, she objected to the practices of catch-and-release fishing, live baiting and boar hunting. [2] The issue is whether the broadcasts breached any of the standards set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....