Search Rapua

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime News – report on prediction that goods and services tax and personal tax rates may need to be raised – contained comment from tax expert – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements were general and clearly distinguishable as opinion – not subject to the accuracy standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Prime News, broadcast on Prime TV at 5. 30pm on Monday 20 October 2008, reported on a prediction that goods and services tax (GST) and personal tax rates may need to be raised due to the global economic crisis and expensive election promises. [2] The presenter introduced the item by saying: National and Labour have dismissed suggestions that personal income tax and GST have to rise....

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. . ....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging sports commentary of the ICC World Test Championship final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The comments ‘it's a story that's akin to David versus Goliath…and living proof that sometimes, just sometimes, nice guys do finish first’ did not refer to a particular section of the community as contemplated by the standard. In any event, it was typical of sports commentary and did not have a prejudicial meaning. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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....

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....

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...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Prime News item reported on the Conservative Party Annual General Meeting, which was the subject of a police call-out because a former Board member attempted to attend the meeting and was issued a trespass notice. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item lacked balance, was inaccurate and was unfair to the Conservative Party and its former leader Colin Craig. The item was a straightforward news report that was not unfair to the Conservative Party or Colin Craig, who as a public figure should expect to be subject to some criticism and scrutiny. The item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance that required the presentation of other views and was not inaccurate....

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....

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....

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....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-179 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by H M ROMANIUK of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R M McLeod J Withers...

An item on Prime News inadvertently contained an uncensored image of the word ‘cunt’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the action taken by the broadcaster in response to this error was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaint under the good taste and decency standard and took steps to address the error with its news producers. The broadcaster also apologised to the complainant. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken)...

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint an item on Prime News, reporting on reactions to comments made by ACT Party Leader David Seymour on the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, as well as an incident where two men went to the Ministry and filmed staff while asking about expenditure, breached the accuracy standard. The complainant considered the broadcast breached the standard as it gave the misleading impression that two men had threatened staff at the Ministry as a result of Seymour’s statements, and it was inaccurate to suggest the men ‘threatened’ staff when ‘they only filmed staff while asking about spending’. The Authority agreed the broadcast’s introduction could have given the impression the two men went to the Ministry as a direct result of Seymour’s comments (when this occurred prior)....

In an episode of Rugby Nation, commentator Tony Johnson made a reference to Israel Folau using the phrase ‘the F word’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The complainant argued that the broadcast was harmful to Mr and Mrs Folau. However, as two individuals they are not a recognised section of the community as required by the standard. The discrimination and denigration standard therefore did not apply. The Authority declined to imply the good taste and decency or fairness standards into the complaint on the basis that the original complaint did not raise arguments consistent with an alleged breach of those standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...