Search Rapua

ComplaintSky Digital Juice Channel 21 – music video – "My Favourite Game" by The Cardigans – lead member driving dangerously while singing – encouraging young people to drive dangerouslyFindingsStandard S2 – content not unsuitable for broadcast in context – no upholdStandard S5 – no disrespect shown for principles of law – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe music video "My Favourite Game" by The Cardigans, was broadcast on the Sky Digital Juice Channel 21 on 9 April 2001 at 10. 50pm. The video depicts the lead singer driving a convertible car along a desert highway. The singer places a rock on the accelerator to keep the pedal down, and is seen at various stages using her feet to turn the steering wheel. Her driving causes other car drivers to crash their cars on the highway....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The E! channel featured an 'Entertainment Special' entitled The Real 50 Shades of Grey about couples who engage in BDSM (Bondage/ Discipline/ Dominance/ Submission/ Sadism/ Masochism). The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme encouraged sexual violence and normalised BDSM practice. The content was discussed only in fairly innocuous terms and no explicitly sexual or violent material was shown. However, the Authority upheld the complaint that the programme should have included warning labels for sexual and other potentially offensive content, as the subject matter had the potential to offend viewers. Upheld: Content Classification, Warning and FilteringNot Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, ViolenceNo OrderIntroduction[1] The E! channel featured an 'Entertainment Special' on The Real 50 Shades of Grey. Couples who engaged in BDSM (Bondage/ Discipline/ Dominance/ Submission/ Sadism/ Masochism) and experts on the subject were interviewed....

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. ]Peter Popoff Ministries is a religious programme hosted by controversial televangelist, Peter Popoff. This programme featured Popoff and his wife preaching and allegedly healing audience members, as well as testimonies from various attendees about miracles and financial rewards received from God after they bought Popoff’s ‘Miracle Spring Water’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme was ‘fraudulent’, as it took advantage of viewers who may be misled by the programme into losing money. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s genuine and well intentioned concerns. However, it found that the accuracy standard did not apply to religious programming, such as Peter Popoff’s Ministries, and programme selection and scheduling decisions fell to the responsible broadcaster to determine. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction[1] Peter Popoff Ministries is a religious programme hosted by controversial televangelist, Peter Popoff....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Australian Tennis Open – some footage included a “Live” watermark even though the matches had already been played – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard P8 (accuracy) – not a “significant error of fact” – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] From 14 to 27 January 2008, footage of the Australian Tennis Open was broadcast on SKY Sport 2 between 1pm and 12am. Between matches that were broadcast live, historical footage, simultaneous matches, and highlights from matches which had already taken place were screened to fill in the scheduled breaks. Some of these were introduced by commentators as footage that was filling the time between matches, or identified as games that had already been played earlier in the tournament. For example:. . . Later on, we’ve got the second of the men’s singles semi-finals. . ....

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(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)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime News – news item repeated footage of a high tackle 12 times – allegedly in breach of violence standard Findings Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain gratuitous violence – footage was repeated to allow viewers to decide for themselves if the player had intended to make the high tackle – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Prime News at 5. 50 pm on 16 August 2007, reported that a rugby league player had been found guilty of a reckless tackle by the Australian National Rugby League judiciary and had been suspended for seven games. During the course of the item, footage of the high tackle was shown 12 times....

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. ]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 1989A Shot at Love II with Tila Tequila – reality dating show where a bisexual woman dated 15 men and 15 women – allegedly in breach of children’s standard and classification and warning standardFindings Standard P1 (Content classification, warning and filtering) – programme borderline 16 but appropriately classified M – did not require S warning label – not upheldStandard P3 (Children) – not targeted at children or screened adjacent to content aimed at children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A Shot at Love II with Tila Tequila was the second series of a reality television dating game show starring bisexual American internet celebrity Tila Tequila....

ComplaintCommando – film – screened at 1. 15pm – violent – unsuitable for children – inappropriately classifiedFindingsStandard S20 – unacceptable violence – upholdStandard S22 – some violence involving a child – upholdStandard S23 – violence and language unsuitable at that time – upholdStandard S26 – extreme methods not capable of easy imitation – no upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The film Commando was screened at 1. 15pm on 15 December 2001 on the Sky Movie Channel. Rated "M", the film is of the action genre and starred Arnold Schwarzenneger. [2] Lewis Martin complained to Sky Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that in view of the quantity and explicitness of the violence, it was unsuitable for children and should have been classified as "18"....

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...

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...

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’....

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)....

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. ]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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that footage of spectators fighting during the half-time of the EURO 2020 final breached the violence standard. The Authority found the broadcast was justified by its context. Live sporting events are not subject to classification. The item was a live international feed where the broadcaster had limited editorial control, the content was not particularly graphic and the commentators indicated their disapproval of the violence. Not Upheld: Violence...