Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme’s reference to delivering tax relief was misleading as the Party’s policy of ‘tax cuts for the majority of families…[has] been proven to be incorrect by independent economists’. The Authority considered viewers would have understood the statement to be advocacy or opinion rather than fact, encouraging the public to vote for National, and the relevant statement reflected National Party policy; it is not a quantified promise, a guarantee, or a statement of fact. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy), E2: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...

The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast of potentially offensive language in two episodes of Inside the Red Arrows breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The complainant made separate complaints about each episode. The broadcaster did not respond within the required 20 working day statutory timeframe, although once the complaint was referred to the Authority, it responded to Mr Francis advising that his complaint about the first episode was upheld. It later advised the Authority that the second complaint was also upheld. Upon considering the substance of the complaints, the Authority recognised the value of the documentary series, however, it found that as the episodes were broadcast at 7. 30pm, which is a time that children may be watching, and they were not preceded by any warning for language, the broadcasts breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A story on 60 Minutes featured tragic driveway accidents involving children. Part of the story focused on the death of an 18-month-old boy, and the subsequent struggles of his mother. The mother also discussed her other son, S, and photos and footage were shown of him. The Authority upheld a complaint from S's father that the programmes breached S's privacy. S was identifiable by name and image, he was linked with details of his mother's drug addiction and prostitution which constituted private facts and this disclosure was highly offensive. In the circumstances the broadcaster's primary concern ought to have been the best interests of the child, regardless of any consent obtained. The Authority recognised the value and public interest in the story but this was outweighed by the need to protect the child....

...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. The Authority has upheld a complaint that the frequent use of ‘fuck’ (and variations) during A Life on the Road breached the good taste and decency standard. The episode featured Brian Johnson of AC/DC talking to Lars Ulrich of Metallica about touring in the early 90s, along with footage from the tours and interviews with Metallica crew and fans. It was broadcast at 12pm with a ‘PGL’ rating (Parental Guidance; language may offend). The Authority found this did not provide sufficient reliable information to signpost the level and frequency of language in the programme and did not give the audience an adequate opportunity to exercise choice and control – meaning they were more likely to be surprised and offended by the content....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Soviet Story – documentary about the Soviet regime – contained graphic and violent details, as well as photographs and video footage of torture, mass graves, murder and starvation – allegedly in breach of standards relating to children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard P4 (violence) – violent content not carefully classified – upheldStandard P3 (children) – broadcaster sufficiently protected child viewers from unsuitable content – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Soviet Story, a documentary about genocide and mass murder under the Soviet regime, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on The History Channel on Friday 29 October 2010. The documentary canvassed alleged political and philosophical connections between the Nazi and Soviet systems before and during the early stages of World War II....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Amazon with Bruce Parry – during the programme the presenter said “fuck” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcast prior to 8. 30pm watershed – research suggests that the word “fuck” would be unacceptable to majority of New Zealanders in this context – upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The programme Amazon with Bruce Parry was broadcast on Prime TV at 7. 30pm on Friday 26 June 2009. It was part of a series that examined the area around the Amazon River, its people, their culture, resource extraction and environmental issues....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Voice of Islam broadcast a speech by a prominent Muslim speaker, in which she discussed the teachings of Islam. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme amounted to 'hate speech' and incited violence. The speech clearly comprised the speaker's own interpretation of the teachings of the Qur'an, and did not contain anything which threatened broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children, Law and Order, Fairness, Accuracy Introduction[1] Voice of Islam broadcast a speech by a prominent Muslim speaker, in which she discussed the teachings of Islam. [2] Adam Lloyd complained that that programme amounted to 'hate speech' and 'incite[d] violence towards unbelievers'. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, children, law and order, fairness and accuracy standards of the Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Penis Envy promo – promo for AO-classified documentary broadcast during PGR-rated television series Stephen Fry in America – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – promo would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for a documentary, Penis Envy, was broadcast on Prime TV at 8. 10pm on Monday 27 September 2010, during the television programme Stephen Fry in America which was rated PGR. Penis Envy was classified Adults Only and was broadcast on Wednesday 29 September at 9. 30pm....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Kalgoorlie Cops – included footage of barmaids wearing lingerie and skimpy outfits as well as a topless barmaid using her bare breasts to entertain patrons – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decencyFindingsStandard P2 (good taste and decency) – content intended to be light-hearted and humorous – channel and programme targeted at adults – episode classified “M” and preceded by a clear warning for nudity and mature themes – filtering technology available on SKY – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An episode of the reality TV series Kalgoorlie Cops was broadcast on the Crime and Investigation Channel at 2pm on Monday 20 June 2011. The narrator introduced the programme as follows: This is Kalgoorlie, sitting on the edge of Australia’s biggest gold mine....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Five on Fox News featured a panel discussion about the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. One of the panellists twice commented that a solution for the remaining Guantánamo Bay inmates would be to ‘kill them all’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the comment incited mass murder. The comment did not amount to promotion of serious illegal activity to a New Zealand audience, and in the context of the discussion and the nature of the programme and channel it was unlikely to be taken literally by reasonable viewers. Not Upheld: Law and OrderIntroduction[1] The Five on Fox News featured a panel discussion about the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. One of the panellists twice commented that a solution for the remaining Guantánamo Bay inmates would be to ‘kill them all’....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Party Infrastructure Advertisement – contained images of infrastructure that was allegedly planned, consented, funded and mostly completed under the previous Labour Government – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) of the Free-to-Air TV Code – advertisement created impression that the National-led Government had a role in the examples of infrastructure shown – however language in the advertisement was couched in present and forward-looking terms rather than looking at past achievements – not inaccurate – fairness standard only applies to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that statements made during Uncharted with Sam Neill were inaccurate. A complaint was made that host Sam Neill and an interviewee during the programme implied that missionaries primarily came to New Zealand for the purpose of acquiring land, which was misleading and misrepresented their good work. The Authority considered that the programme was clearly framed from the outset as a chance for untold or unexplored stories and perspectives to be expressed. In these circumstances, the Authority found that the statements complained about were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and were therefore not subject to the requirements of the accuracy standard. The Authority’s intervention in upholding the complaint would therefore represent an unreasonable and unjustified limit on the right to freedom of expression....

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....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the comment ‘Australia mugs the Black Caps’ breached the fairness, discrimination and denigration, and balance standards. The comment was typical of sports commentary and was not unfair to the Australian cricket team. As it was directed at the Australian cricket team, rather than a particular section of the community, the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. The balance standard also did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...