Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Line of Beauty – episode of programme about a young gay Oxford graduate included homosexual sex scenes – allegedly breached standards of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] An episode of the drama Line of Beauty was broadcast at 11. 50pm on TV One on Sunday 28 October 2007. Line of Beauty followed a young, gay, middle class Oxford graduate Nick who was invited to live with a wealthy and politically powerful family in the 1980s. [2] This episode contained several sex scenes. In one scene, Nick watched as his boyfriend and another man appeared to engage in oral sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TV2 promo – on screen graphics for TV2 promo included a hazy substance wafting up the screen – allegedly represented smoke and thus breached the Smoke Free Environment Act prohibition on promoting smoking behaviourFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – promo did not promote disrespect for the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The imagery used in on-screen graphics to identify a television channel as TV2 included a hazy substance wafting up the screen. It was broadcast frequently at various times. Complaint[2] Brandon Orlandini complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the haze shown in the TV2 promo represented smoke. That view, he said, was shared by others and many, like him, felt a "strong urge to smoke" on seeing the promo....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and TV One promos – use of the word “next” – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled by the use of the word “next” to indicate upcoming programmes – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Prior to a commercial break during One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6. 15pm on 9 March 2007, a banner at the bottom of the screen said “Next: Alzheimer’s Awareness” as the presenter briefly described an upcoming news item. [2] On the same evening at 6. 55pm, a TV One promo carried the words “Next: Antiques Roadshow”, and on 11 March 2007 at 6. 55pm a similar promo read “Next: Close Up”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Medical drama series Bodies – scene involving woman giving birth and then having difficulty delivering placenta – woman’s genitals explicitly shown – allegedly breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Bodies is a medical drama series set in the obstetric and gynaecological ward of a fictional English hospital. The episode screened on TV One on 9 May 2006 at 9. 30pm commenced with the story of a woman giving birth. Following the birth scenes, the woman was shown lying on her back with her legs elevated in stirrups, awaiting the delivery of the placenta. When the placenta was eventually delivered, the woman suffered a uterine inversion, whereby the uterus is literally turned inside-out and appears outside the vagina....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Trial by Ordeal – documentary – examined three jury trials of John Barlow charged with double murder – questioned fairness in view of the length of the process – interviewed some participants and set up mock jury to hear evidence – allegedly gratuitous murder reconstructions, offensive and unnecessarily violent, and favoured defence over prosecutionFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – opposing perspectives advanced – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) and Guidelines 10b (cumulative effect) and 10f (repeated gratuitously) – reconstructions, while gruesome, were not gratuitous or repeated unnecessarily – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Trial by Ordeal was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 9. 00pm on 12 February 2004....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and declined to take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item focused on woman who had married Scott Watson who is in prison serving a life sentence for two murders – touched on aspects of the trial and conviction of Watson – used brief sequences from documentary Murder on the Blade? produced by the complainant – allegedly presented aspects of trial and evidence inaccurately and complainant argued that he had been misinformed by TVNZ of the use to which the sequences were to be put. FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some statements made in broadcast inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant not referred to in programme – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – young people mimicking professional wrestling – impressionable people might copy – irresponsible itemFindingsStandard G12 – extensive warnings – no uphold Standard V6 – cautionary tale – appropriate warnings – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item discussing a social problem in the United States involving young people mimicking professional wrestling stunts they saw on television was broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 19 April 2001. John and Barbara Maltby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that impressionable young people in New Zealand might copy the graphic detail shown in the item. They considered that TVNZ had been irresponsible in screening the item. In response, TVNZ noted that the item had been preceded by a lengthy warning and followed by a statement from the presenter urging young people not to follow the example set by some American youth....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-029:O'Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-029 PDF1. 33 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 127/94 Decision No: 128/94 Decision No: 129/94 Decision No: 130/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TREVOR MALLARD MP and VALERIE L J GREHAN of Wainuiomata and WAINUIOMATA COMMUNITY BOARD and DENNIS J KEALL of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

ComplaintSpace – images of man exposing buttocks – "mooning" – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Space was broadcast on TV2 at 11. 25pm on 8 March 2002. At the end of the episode, images of a man’s buttocks, and of a second man holding the cheeks of the man’s buttocks apart, were broadcast in a montage of out-takes over which the closing credits were run. The incident apparently occurred during a stag party. [2] Laurie Collier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence was "one of the most indecent incidents I’ve witnessed on television". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. It did not consider that in the overall context of Space the scene was in breach of broadcasting standards....

ComplaintCrimebusters – piss and shit – offensive language – associating faeces with stolen food – sensational – identified alleged thief who soiled himself – unfair –alleged shoplifter had been humiliated by advising that he had soiled himself – Standard 6 and Guideline 6f – upheld by broadcaster Findings(1) Standard 1 – colloquial – context – borderline – no uphold (2) Action taken on Standard 6, Guideline 6f – action taken insufficient – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Crimebusters looked at shoplifting and some security operations to catch shoplifters. One segment dealt with a man in a supermarket caught hiding two cans of ham in his trousers. It was reported that he had soiled himself when questioned by the shop’s security staff, and the evidence was found on the cans when they were recovered....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-001 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEITH PETRIE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-071 Dated the 11th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-098 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP DUNLOP of Pokeno Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

During Breakfast, a news presenter laughed before introducing a report regarding Remembrance Sunday. The Authority found this did not breach the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the laughter was clearly directed at another presenter sneezing on-air, not at the story, and would not have caused audiences undue offence or distress, or undermined widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-015 Dated the 27th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AUCKLAND TROTTING CLUB (INC) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....