Search Rapua

Summary An episode of Hollywood Sex, a two-part series dealing with the sex industry in Hollywood, was broadcast on TV2 on 2 September 1999 beginning at 9. 30pm. Rosemary McElroy, on behalf of Women Against Pornography, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that in spite of the warning preceding the programme, the average adult viewer would not have expected what she described as the degree of "pornographic" content which it contained. She contended that the programme breached accepted norms of good taste and decency, and cited several examples of what she considered to be objectionable material. TVNZ noted that various aspects of the sex industry had been depicted, and that the emphasis had been on the curious and grotesque. While the nature of the sexual activity discussed had been indicated, there had been no scenes of sexual intercourse or any full frontal nudity, it observed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Without a Trace – promo showed a woman interrogating a beaten man, who was sitting on a chair, his hands tied and bleeding – woman aimed a nail gun at the man’s groin and stated “…I will nail more than your hand to the chair” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo correctly classified as PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority agreed that the broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was brief – did not contain explicit violence – majority considered broadcaster exercised…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-052:Edwards and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-052 PDF263. 01 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-085–087:Church of Scientology of New Zealand, Frater and Kershaw and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-085, 1993-086, 1993-087 PDF2. 08 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that broadcasting his use of the word ‘prick’ breached standards. The comment was intended as self-deprecating humour, rather than being offensive or abusive, and it was relatively fleeting in the context of the item, which focused on a potential alliance between the Internet Party and the Mana Party. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] During One News, an item about the relationship between the Mana and Internet Parties included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. He was shown addressing the guests, saying: I’ll leave it up to you [the guests] to decide whether I’m a prick or not… [laughter from audience]… hopefully you’ll wait until after the speech....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 16/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HOPE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2010-485-002008 PDF3....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item on Māori TV’s bid for the free-to-air broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup – included satirical sketch about what Māori TV’s coverage would look like – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – legitimate satire – lacked necessary invective to cross threshold for denigration of Māori as a section of the community – Māori TV not a section of the community – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Māori TV treated fairly – Pita Shaples and Julian Wilcox treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item was satire – did not “discuss” a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – investigation of availability of ingredients needed to make methamphetamine or ‘P’ – hidden camera footage of two shopkeepers – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not list all of the ingredients needed to make ‘P’ – no recipes or techniques mentioned – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – high level of public interest in the items – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not relevant to complainant’s concerns – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcaster did not mislead or alarm viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high…...

ComplaintManhattan on the Beach – sexual/adult themes – 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 final episode of Manhattan on the Beach was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 00pm on 18 September 2001. Manhattan on the Beach was a fly-on-the-wall documentary series which followed New Yorkers on holiday in the Hamptons – a resort location in up-state New York. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained sexual themes and a "simulated sex act" which were outside accepted norms of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Shortland Street showed the death of a 14-year-old character, Pixie. Pixie had apparently been undergoing chemotherapy and was hospitalised for pneumonia. At the end of the episode, Pixie’s condition rapidly deteriorated and she died. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item should have been preceded by a warning because children could have been disturbed and upset by the content. Shortland Street is rated PGR and frequently features adult themes. While the fictional depiction of a child’s death was potentially upsetting, it was not outside audience expectations and parents had an opportunity to exercise discretion. Not Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Shortland Street showed the death of 14-year-old character Pixie. Pixie had apparently been undergoing chemotherapy and had contracted pneumonia....

SummaryA segment on National Radio’s Nine to Noon which featured a review of a book entitled "Four to Score" was broadcast on 1 October 1998. The broadcast had included the host of the programme referring to a character in the book whose surname was "Kuntz". Mr Lord complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character’s surname was pronounced by the host in a manner which was deliberately offensive and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the sensibilities of her audience. In his view, the host should have used the softer Germanic pronunciation instead of what he described as the most distasteful pronunciation possible. RNZ advised that as the word was used once only in the context of a literary review, it had not been used gratuitously....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Hauraki Amped – promotion for the chance to win a trip to Bangkok with reference to the film The Hangover Part II – stated “Hauraki’s going to send you and two mates to get your own hangover in Thailand” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to responsible programming and liquor FindingsStandard 9 (liquor) – brief reference to getting a “hangover” clearly related to The Hangover Part II film – did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comment acceptable in light of target audience – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Hauraki Amped, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 11am on Sunday 1 May 2011, included an item promoting the chance to win a trip to Bangkok, the setting for the film The Hangover Part II....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 New Zealand First Election Advertisement – child stated, “My mum and dad are voting for New Zealand First. They say that Winston will give us a fair go” – allegedly in breach of responsible programming standardFindings Standard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 8 (responsible programming) of the Radio Code – advertisement broadcast in robust political environment during lead-up to the election – reasonable listeners would understand that children are under the legal age to vote – complaint does not raise any issues of broadcasting standards which warrant our consideration – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...