Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

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....

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...

ComplaintTarget – description of house cleaner as tradesperson – denigration of tradespeople – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – offensive Findings (1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – no uphold (3) Standard G4 – no unfairness – no uphold (4) Standard G13 – no denigration or discrimination – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 at 7. 00pm on 14 May 2000 featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial. One of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour....

SummaryThe New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7. 00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homai Te Pakipaki – singing contest – viewers had the opportunity to vote via text messaging for their favourite contestant – allegedly in breach of fairness, programme information and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme clearly based on popularity with voters rather than talent – standard does not apply to viewers as they are not individuals taking part or referred to – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – conditions of voting were made clear – no evidence to suggest that viewers were deceived or disadvantaged – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was not targeted at children – broadcaster adequately considered interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Homai Te Pakipaki, a karaoke-style singing contest, was broadcast on Māori TV at 8....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-091 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RON MILLS of Picton Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – "The Naked Breast" – promo – masking of breasts – untruthful – discriminatory – deceptive – corrupts children FindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G5 – not applicable Standard G7 – not applicable Standard G12 – no evidence of corruption – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A promo for the Inside New Zealand documentary "The Naked Breast" was screened on TV3 during the evening of 10 September 2000. Breasts were masked by means of a design graphic as the voiceover described some of the programme’s content. John Lowe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the breasts in the promo sent a message that they were a prohibited part of the body. He said that the masking obscured the truth, was discriminatory and therefore illegal, was deceptive and corrupted children....

ComplaintPromo – Charmed – slutty – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of children FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – PGR rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G22 – PGR rating correct – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Charmed was broadcast on TV3 on 30 September 2001 at 8. 20pm, during the film The Phantom Menace. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of the word "slutty" in a promo which was broadcast during PGR time. [3] TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. It considered that the promo was acceptable for screening during PGR time....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-026 Decision No: 1996-027 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SUZI ARCHER of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-175 Decision No: 1996-176 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TEMALOTI FAKAOSI (2) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Masterchef NZ – three teams shown taking part in cooking competition – all teams used fresh crayfish as an ingredient – live crayfish shown accidentally being dropped onto the floor –one contestant placed three live crayfish into boiling water – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standardsClose Up – item on how to kill a crayfish correctly – interviewed the Masterchef NZ judge and contestant who boiled the crayfish – using a live crayfish the chef showed viewers how to kill it humanely – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Masterchef NZ correctly classified G – Close Up was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – neither programme required…...

Complaint under sections 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – Mr Laws interviewed the complainant, Karen Batchelor, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association – Mr Laws accused Ms Batchelor of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements – Mr Laws made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Action Taken – Mr Laws took an overly aggressive approach and continuously interrupted the complainant – he made comments that were personally abusive and accused the complainant of lying – overall complainant was treated unfairly – serious breach of fairness standard – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld Standard 5…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision]A ONE News item showed security footage of a violent attack on a liquor store worker by four men to assist police in identifying and apprehending the attackers. Two explicit warnings were given prior to the footage. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the violence shown was gratuitous. It was an important news story aimed at identifying and catching the attackers and was accompanied by clear warnings from the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] A ONE News item showed a violent attack on a liquor store worker by four men. The security footage showed the store worker being punched, kicked and dragged across the store, having a bottle of spirits smashed over his head and being kicked in the head as he lay on the ground....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]3D reported on the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, and the stories of several girls and their families who believed that they had suffered serious health problems after being vaccinated. It also reported on the as-yet-unexplained sudden deaths of two girls who had recently received the vaccine. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the maker of Gardasil alleging that the programme misleadingly suggested that Gardasil was unsafe and thus deceived and disadvantaged the public when there was no evidential basis for doing so. The story was well-reported, was measured in its presentation and gave viewers a range of information, which enabled them to make up their own minds about the vaccine. The Authority emphasised the high public interest in the story and in giving a platform for minority voices to be heard....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – resident dog trainer worked to retrain the dogs to be better behaved – dog training methods allegedly outdated and harmful – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes did not contain any material inaccuracies – commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as such – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes appropriately classified PGR – episodes contained clear disclaimer – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld 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 standardsFindingsStandard 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....