Search Rapua

ComplaintStrassman – fuck – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in standard G2; Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits – bordering on gratuitous; comment – children in studio audience – unsatisfactory as programme classified AO This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 26 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. [3] In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – use of archive footage of haka during item about foreshore and seabed dispute – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – use of footage not misleading or inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – use not unfair to any person or group – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Archive footage of a haka performed at Waitangi beach was used in a Holmes item about the dispute over ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The programme was broadcast on 19 August 2003 at 7. 00pm on TV One. [2] Wiremu Te Rauna Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the archive footage was inaccurate and amounted to “fraud and betrayal”, as it had no connection to the seabed and foreshore debate....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld direct privacy complaints in relation to broadcasts reporting on a shootout between fugitive Tom Phillips and police, and the location of his two missing children in the bush. The complainant submitted broadcasting the children were ‘cooperative’ with police, and images of their campsite, breached the children’s privacy. Applying the privacy standard, the Authority found these limited details did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy, noting they had been released by police and were in the public domain, and were not intimate or sensitive in nature. While acknowledging the children’s vulnerability and lack of consent to these details being broadcast, given the significant public interest and concern for the children’s wellbeing, it could reasonably be expected that this limited information about their demeanour and where they were found may be disclosed. Not Upheld: Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 100/94 Decision No: 101/94 Dated the 20th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaints by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR and ALCOHOL HEALTHWATCH Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 19/95 Decision No: 20/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KINGS COLLEGE of Auckland and its headmaster JOHN TAYLOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 32/94 Dated the 26th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAJIT THEODORE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – language – “fuck you” – allegedly offensive – warning requiredFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – warning not necessary – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Spooks is a BBC drama series built around the activities of a fictional counter-terrorism unit attached to MI5. MI5 is the government agency responsible for internal security. In an episode beginning at 9. 30pm broadcast on TV One on 24 February 2004, one character said to another “fuck you”. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive and the programme should have been preceded with a warning. Standards [3] TVNZ assessed the complaint under Standard 1 and Guidelines 1a and 1b of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Summary A One Network News item reporting on the situation in East Timor included three photographs which had been smuggled out of the territory. The photographs were said to depict the severed head of a man impaled on a stake, the body of a woman who it was alleged had been raped, and the body of a beheaded man being dragged along on a rope. The item was broadcast on TV One on 23 September 1999 commencing at 6. 00pm. Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that none of the photographs was fit for broadcast at that time of night. That was supposed to be a safe viewing time for young people, she wrote. She added that the photographs were "horrific", and that it was "totally irresponsible" and "totally inappropriate" to show them without any warning....

ComplaintNew Zealand Festival: Virginity – language – "did you fuck him? " – offensive FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – not gratuitous – acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme New Zealand Festival: Virginity was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 19 February 2001. One of the seven women who spoke of their first sexual experiences reported that she was later asked by an acquaintance, "did you fuck him? " Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "fuck" was grossly offensive. He argued that the classification of a programme as AO and the inclusion of a warning did not excuse the broadcaster from the requirement to maintain standards of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – use of the word “shit” – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter used the word “shit” as an expression of his pain and frustration – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 23 March 2011, one of the presenters discussed his frustration with attempting to assemble a “spring-free” trampoline. Having nearly finished putting the trampoline together, the presenter discovered that he had inserted the rods under the trampoline into the wrong holes. He remarked, “So we have to undo all those? Shit. ” He went on to say, “Getting them out is almost worse than getting them in, and more hazardous....

ComplaintMarathon Man – film – offensive language – warning ought to have been broadcast – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The movie Marathon Man was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on 22 May 2002. [2] Mrs M Charlton complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the movie contained offensive language, and that viewers ought to have been warned about its use. [3] Prime upheld the complaint and apologised to the complainant. It explained that appropriate staff had been reminded of Prime’s collective responsibility "with emphasis placed on not making assumptions on behalf of viewers and that warnings must be specific in nature". [4] Dissatisfied with the action taken in response to her complaint, Mrs Charlton referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an audio tape purporting to carry the voice of Osama Bin Laden – reporter said that “Bin Laden threatened to again take revenge on America as he did on 9/11” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s. 11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News at 6pm on 20 January 2006 reported that an audio tape, purporting to carry the voice of Osama Bin Laden, had been broadcast by a television network in the Middle East. The tape had warned of new terrorist actions against the United States. The reporter said: In the tape that aired on Al Jazeera, Bin Laden threatened to again take revenge on America as he did on 9/11....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent controversy about the noise levels at the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland was discussed on Close Up @ 7 on TV One at 7pm on 17 December 2004. The item included a studio discussion with a member of the local residents’ group that had petitioned to get the noise levels reduced, and an Auckland City Councillor. [2] The item began by showing the signatures of those whose petition over the noise levels had been presented to the Environment Court....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...