Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Birdland – presenter Jeremy Wells looked at birdlife in New Zealand – visited a weka farm in Southland – was shown caring for pet mice then releasing them to be eaten by weka – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – guideline 9d – animals badly treated – gratuitous and not justified by context – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Birdland, a locally produced wildlife programme hosted by comedian Jeremy Wells, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 14 November 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Game of Two Halves – included woman whipping a man’s partially bare buttocks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 10 (violence) – segment was distasteful and gratuitous but upholding complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Game of Two Halves, a sports quiz show featuring two teams of various sporting personalities, screened on TV One at 9. 45pm on 1 August 2008. The teams were captained by sporting personalities Marc Ellis and Matthew Ridge. [2] At the end of the episode, the captain of the losing team had to undergo what was called the “Studio Forfeit”, in which the opposing team inflicted light-hearted punishment....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News item investigating Waka Kotahi’s communications around its use of glyphosate. The complainant stated the item was unbalanced as it did not present views supporting glyphosate’s safety. The Authority found, as the broadcast was narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger debate around glyphosate use, no further balancing material relating to glyphosate safety was required. It noted the item had signalled the existence of other views and glyphosate’s safety was the subject of ongoing media coverage. Accordingly, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware it was the subject of competing points of view and were unlikely to be left misinformed by the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News item on Tross Publishing, which it reported had been ‘accused of publishing books that are anti-Māori, inaccurate and harmful’ and discussed the use of its books in schools. While the complainant was concerned the broadcast was ‘anti-white’ and ‘anti-immigrant,’ the Authority found it did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against ‘white’ people, and that immigrants are not a recognised section of the community for the purposes of the standard. It also found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the item, the broadcast did not breach the accuracy standard, and Tross Publishing was treated fairly in the broadcast. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 23/94 Dated the 5th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 36/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B A MUDFORD of Matamata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LESLIE GEE of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-054 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER NEWFIELD of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-138 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G RAWSON of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-010 Dated the 13th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLEN J LITTLE of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-079 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JENNY HALE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryA Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

SummaryThe film Eyes Wide Shut was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 29 July 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Trailers for the programme were shown earlier on the same day. Mr Walker and Mrs Siew complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the scenes of lovemaking and nakedness were unsuitable for television viewing, particularly at a time when children would be watching. The film had been devised to be pornographic and had been given an R18 film rating, Mr Walker wrote, but he was not aware that any warning was given by the broadcaster before the scenes were shown on television. The explicit sexual material was also unacceptable for the time band during which the trailer for the programme was placed, Mrs Siew wrote....

Complaint Strassman – offensive language – "fuck" – interview with Rima Te Wiata breached her privacy – offensive behaviourFindings(1) Standard G2 – context – warning – AO time and classification – no uphold (2) Privacy – no private facts revealed – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of the comedy programme Strassman was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 16 May 2000. Brian Shearer complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the repeated use of the word "fuck" during the programme, and an interview with Rima Te Wiata, which he considered breached her privacy and was in bad taste due to questions asked about her sex life. TVNZ responded that the programme was intended as adult entertainment, began well after the watershed, carried an AO certificate and was preceded by a warning about strong language....

ComplaintTeachers – promo – visuals of naked man – broadcaster not mindful of effect on children FindingsStandard G12 – promo farcical – not damaging to children – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the programme Teachers was shown during the One News bulletin broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 20 August 2001. The visuals included a naked man in a foetal position, and the man running naked down a corridor with his hands covering his private parts. [2] Glenette Menzies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo should not have been shown at that hour. [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint, stating that the visuals of the naked man were not explicit and did not stray beyond currently accepted norms of decency and taste....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on group of duck hunters – hunters shown drinking alcohol and using firearms – brands of alcohol visible – man shown taking his pants off and diving onto a blow-up doll – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – item contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of man with blow-up doll and mixing of firearms and alcohol strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Real Crime: Interview with a Serial Killer – contained part of an interview with a serial killer who stated that he had snapped a woman’s neck – allegedly in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – promo contained adult themes which would have disturbed and alarmed child viewers – promo incorrectly classified G – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld OrderSection 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the programme Real Crime: Interview with a Serial Killer was broadcast at 5. 25pm on Wednesday 16 September 2009. It was shown in the G (General) timeband, directly after a One News update and just prior to a G-rated programme, Australian MasterChef....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Scrubs – storyline involving a patient who had taken erectile dysfunction pills – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – storyline was handled in a discreet and inexplicit manner – acceptable within PGR programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Scrubs, a comedy programme following the lives of staff at a fictional hospital, was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Wednesday 21 May 2008. One of three storylines in the episode followed a doctor, Elliot, as she treated a man who had a persistent erection after taking erectile dysfunction pills. [2] The storyline was introduced when Elliot addressed a patient in the waiting room, asking “what seems to be the problem?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....