Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about Prime News’ coverage of King Charles’ coronation on 1 and 2 May 2023. The complainant alleged the first broadcast was unbalanced as it only included interviews with people who were opposed to the idea of the public being asked to participate in a pledge of allegiance to the King. They further considered the second broadcast was inaccurate as the reporter did not back up their introductory statement ‘Love him or loathe him, in London right now, you can't escape him’ with evidence that people did loathe King Charles, and described a souvenir of the King ‘as a clown’....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 11/95 Dated the 6th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989True Stories Uncut: Tantastic – contained shots of naked man – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was not titillating or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary titled True Stories Uncut: Tantastic was broadcast on Prime Television at 9. 35pm on Friday 30 January 2009. The programme spoke to a number of people, described as “tanorexics”, who were obsessed with tanning, either naturally or through the use of sun beds or spray tans in salons. [2] At approximately 9. 55pm, the programme featured a middle-aged man who liked to sunbathe naked. He was shown undressing then lying naked in his backyard, mowing the lawns naked, and then walking down a beach naked....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Crowd Goes Wild – host made comments about acclimatising to conditions in India leading up to the Commonwealth Games – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comments related to conditions in India – comments did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Indian people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of The Crowd Goes Wild, broadcast on Prime at 7pm on 14 September 2010, an item reported on the Samoan Rugby Sevens team’s training in preparation for the Commonwealth Games in India. Following the item, one of the hosts, Mark Richardson, said to his co-host Andrew Mulligan: I think that’s wonderful, you know, trying to acclimatise by training in the heat....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision]An episode of The Brokenwood Mysteries portrayed a character believed to have Asperger Syndrome as a lead suspect in a murder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast denigrated people with Asperger Syndrome. The programme legitimately employed dramatic licence to develop this fictional character, and the character was not intended as a comment on, or a reflection of, all people with Asperger Syndrome. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An episode of a local murder mystery series, The Brokenwood Mysteries portrayed a character believed to have Asperger Syndrome (Amanda) as a lead suspect in a murder. Amanda was portrayed as intense and socially awkward, which other characters attributed to her possible Asperger Syndrome. Amanda was later proven not to be the murderer....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging comments made by commentators during a golf tournament breached the law and order standard. While discussing the difficulty of the course, a commentator suggested ‘Charles Manson put this [pin position] in! ’ Later in the tournament, the commentator said, ‘whoever set that flag, I can just picture him in his room at night catching flies and pulling the wings off them and watching them suffer’. The Authority found this would not have encouraged, promoted or glamorised illegal or anti-social behaviour in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

ComplaintSky Television Rugby Channel – All Black vs. Springboks match – replay of opening try – commentator said “Well, so slick, so smooth, almost a Brazilian…Ronaldo-ish” – offensiveFindingsStandard S2 – throwaway line – not offensive to majority of viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] A rugby match between New Zealand and South Africa was broadcast live on Sky Television Rugby Channel at approximately 7. 30pm on 9 August 2003. The commentator, Murray Mexted, said, during the replay of the All Blacks opening try: “Well so slick, so smooth almost a Brazilian … Ronaldo-ish”. [2] Kristin Hoskin complained to Sky Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to her formal complaint, Ms Hoskin referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A campaign advertisement for the Ban 1080 Party (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) was broadcast at 5. 20pm on 9 September 2017 on Prime, during a G-classified fishing programme, Addicted to Fishing. The advertisement featured a voiceover discussing the purported use and effects of sodium fluoroacetate (1080 poison) on New Zealand’s fauna, in particular deer. The advertisement included a number of close-up images of dead deer allegedly poisoned by 1080, some of which appeared to be frothing at the mouth. A complaint was made that the broadcast of these images at a time when children may be watching was upsetting and inappropriate, in breach of the good taste and decency standard (which applies under Standard E1 of the Election Programmes Code)....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – personal story about a same-sex couple and their experience of parenthood through surrogacy – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on one same-sex couple and their personal experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate – it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance requiring the presentation of alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 60 Minutes, titled “The Two Dads Story”, reported on a same-sex couple and their personal experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate. The item screened as a follow-up to a story that aired on Channel 9’s 60 Minutes in Australia in 2009....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of a documentary series Shocking Lives, titled The Grandmother Lovers, explored relationships between younger men and older women. It contained sexual content and nudity. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the documentary breached the good taste and decency standard. The documentary did not contain overly explicit or graphic material. Sexual activity was largely implied, and the programme featured only limited nudity. The broadcaster took sufficient steps to inform viewers about the content of the programme, which was classified AO, broadcast at 9. 30pm and preceded by a warning for sexual content and nudity. The documentary focused on relationships between consenting adults and in the context of the broadcast this did not undermine general community standards of good taste and decency....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 62/94 Dated the 15th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Parliamentary Question Time – showed Deputy Prime Minister at times when he was not answering or asking questions – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard S6 (balance) – programme did not approach the proceedings from any particular perspective – balance not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Coverage of Parliamentary Question Time was broadcast on Sky News at 2pm on 7 April 2005. Complaint[2] Michael Gibson complained that the broadcast was unbalanced because it focused on the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, at times when he was not asking or answering questions. The coverage had shown Dr Cullen “grinning and derisively showing a dismissive attitude towards the Opposition”, he said. [3] Mr Gibson argued that the broadcaster had broken the same rules which had caused TV3 to be banned from filming in Parliament recently....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Crowd Goes Wild – included review of Soccer World Cup game between Portugal and the Netherlands – one presenter used phrase “Filthy Dutchman” four or five times – allegedly denigratory and in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Standard 6 – denigration of Dutch was essence of complaint – not upheld Standard 6 and Guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheld. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Crowd Goes Wild, broadcast on weekdays by Prime at 7. 00pm, is hosted by two presenters who take a light-hearted approach to recent sporting events....

ComplaintBulworth – film – two screenings – obscene language – fuck – cock sucker FindingsStandard S2 – context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The film Bulworth, a political satire, was broadcast on Sky Movie Max at 6. 10pm on 13 June 2001 and at 4. 40pm on 18 June 2001. It contained a scene during which a young boy swore at a police officer and called him a "fucking pig cock sucker". [2] Phillip Smits complained to Sky Network Television Limited, the broadcaster, that the language was "obscene". [3] Sky did not uphold the complaints. It considered that the language used, when considered in context, did not breach currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language. [4] Dissatisfied with Sky’s response, Mr Smits referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment referring to a rugby player as a ‘Jew’ because he was unwilling to pay for his wedding breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority observed that the comment was an example of casual anti-Semitism and such comments can contribute to the normalisation of racism. However, while the Authority considered the comment to be ignorant and disrespectful, in the context it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a story on Prime News, reporting on incorrect deductions that were made from a solo mother’s benefit, was inaccurate and resulted in Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) being treated unfairly. The featured mother was repaid $7,000 from WINZ after discovering that deductions had been made from her benefit in error, as she qualified for an exemption from a policy requiring her to identify the father of her child. The Authority considered that the item was a fair and accurate report on the issue. WINZ was the agency responsible for administering the woman’s benefit and for making the deductions under legislation. It was therefore reasonable for the broadcaster to refer to WINZ and to rely on comment from the Minister for Social Development in response....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision Nos: 116/95 - 125/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP (4) of Christchurch H SUTHERLAND of Christchurch F MAWSON of Christchurch JOHANNES PATER of Christchurch STEPHANIE JOHNSON of Christchurch MURRAY JOHNSON of Christchurch S FINDLAY of Christchurch SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED Broadcaster J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shameless – programme contained sex scenes, swearing and violence – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – broadcaster upheld complaint under content classification, warning and filtering standard FindingsAction Taken: Standard P1 (content classification, warning and filtering) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard P2 (good taste and decency) – incorrect classification and inadequate warning label meant that viewers were not sufficiently informed of the programme’s likely content – viewers were therefore denied the opportunity to make a different viewing choice and were more likely to be offended – upheld Standard P3 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently protected child viewers from unsuitable content by classifying the programme 16 – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of The Crowd Goes Wild, the hosts discussed the results of the US Masters golf tournament. Host Mark Richardson, referring to English golfer Danny Willett (who ultimately won the tournament), commented in relation to footage of Mr Willett playing a hole, ‘you’re leading the Masters – how’re you going to handle this, you pommy git? Right, so pretty well then, old chap I see’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘pommy git’ was openly racist and derogatory. The hosts of The Crowd Goes Wild are known for their style of presentation and humour, which is often irreverent and ‘tongue-in-cheek’. The comments were not ‘nasty’ or ‘derogatory’ and were not intended to reflect negatively on English people generally....