Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about latest season of local drama series Outrageous Fortune – contained clips of sex scenes from the series – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – inclusion of sex scenes was gratuitous in a news item – warning did not excuse that level of sexual material – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers by including sexual material in a news item broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – guidelines relating to promos and advertisements not applicable to news item – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $4,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – selection of items to include in news programmes is a matter of editorial discretion – complainant did not specify which parts of the programme breached standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Tuesday 29 June 2010. Complaint [2] River Tucker complained to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that “the lack of any in-depth reporting into issues that are important to New Zealanders” on 3 News breached standards relating to the discussion of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming....

ComplaintMost Wanted – music videos – sexual themes offensive – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 7, Guideline 7a – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a and 9d – no disturbing material – no uphold; Guidelines 9c and 9i – irrelevant – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Music videos Without Me, Kiss Kiss and In the Middle and, according to Ms Swenson, Love Don’t Cost a Thing, were broadcast on TV3 and TV4 at various times on various dates between 17 and 21 July 2002. [2] Tina Swenson complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd and TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcasters, that the music videos were sexually explicit, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children....

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....

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. 1993-107:Fudakowski and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-107 PDF483. 7 KB...