Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-110 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN MOIR of Dunedin TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Pulsate Wanaka Big Air contained a mix of competition skiing and music. The comment – "I hope he’s not gay" – was made by the presenter in response to being kissed on the top of his head by a competitor. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 5. 00 pm on 15 August 1999. Ms Durkin complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that in a programme aimed at the youth market such derogatory comments were irresponsible, reinforced negative stereotypes and created prejudice. TVNZ responded that the programme was presented in a light-hearted fashion and featured exuberant personalities. It was an off-the-cuff joke, it wrote, and was intended to be humorous. While it was sorry Ms Durkin was offended, it declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Ms Durkin referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintStrassman – ventriloquist – offensive language – fuck – wank – blasphemyFindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – context relevant – no uphold Cross ReferenceDecision No: 2000-137 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ventriloquist in Strassman, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 18 July 2000 used the word "fuck" and its derivatives when in conversation with his puppet characters. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In particular he said he was offended by the use of the word "fuck", which he said was a macho term which unashamedly denigrated women and instilled an "antisocial and dangerous attitude towards women". As he had received no response from TVNZ, he referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary An episode of It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, based around a fictional troupe of British soldiers in Burma in World War II entertaining fellow soldiers on stage, included a number of "Indian" characters. The episode was broadcast on Prime TV on 2 May 1999 at 8. 05 pm. Mr Theodore complained to Prime Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the episode portrayed Indian people as inherently inferior, that a white actor wearing brown make-up to impersonate an "Indian look and accent" breached norms of decency and good taste, and that the broadcaster had failed to inform viewers of the accuracy of factual matters raised in the episode. Prime TV responded that the programme was not factual, and that within the context of its farcical approach it had not breached norms of taste or decency....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 33/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY of Christchurch 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: 71/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Man Apart – movie about two American drug enforcement officers fighting an ongoing drug war on the California/Mexico border – contained violent scenes including shootings, car explosions and beatings – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – majority of Authority considered the movie’s classification to be borderline but correct – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers by broadcasting the movie at 8. 30pm on a Saturday – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster failed to exercise sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence by broadcasting the movie at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

ComplaintFair Go – “Fair Go Ad Awards” – presenter lampooned margarine advertisement – sexual suggestions allegedly offensive and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 – sexual innuendo oblique and inexplicit – comedy – not upheld Standard 9 – not unsuitable for children in context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The annual “Fair Go Ad Awards” included a segment during which the presenter lampooned an advertisement for margarine, which had been nominated for “worst ad”. The episode of Fair Go was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 15 October 2003. [2] Geoff New complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the parodies contained sexually suggestive material which breached standards of good taste and decency and was unsuitable for children. [3] In response, TVNZ disagreed that the programme breached broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Place in Spain – man said “Jesus [bleep] Christ” during an argument – allegedly in breach 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 A Place in Spain was broadcast on TV One at 5pm on Wednesday 11 June 2008. The series followed Lee and Cheryl, a Welsh couple, on their dream of packing up their life in the United Kingdom and starting a snail farm in Spain. [2] At one point in the episode, Lee and Cheryl were shown in their new car having an argument about the directions being given by their satellite navigation system. During the argument, Lee said “Jesus [bleep] Christ” twice....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – weather item – after autumnal equinox the sun moves into the northern hemisphere – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – colloquial phrase used to convey everyday attitude rather than technical information – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The weather announcer advised viewers of One News that, after the autumnal equinox, the sun moved back into the northern hemisphere. The statement was broadcast on TV One shortly before 7. 00pm on 20 March 2004. Complaint [2] Harry Evison complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate. The biblical notion of the sun “moving”, he wrote, was disproved by Copernicus in the 16th century and the statement made New Zealand look foolish in the eyes of viewers from overseas....

ComplaintOne News – drug related death of a Timaru youth – item implied that suspected overdose was a result of marijuana use – misleading – inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 and Guidelines 5a & 5b – not inaccurate – not misleading – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item concerning the death of a Timaru youth who died of a suspected drug overdose was broadcast on One News at 6pm on Saturday 25 January 2003. The focus of the item was an interview with the father of the youth, who spoke of his son’s addiction to marijuana, his getting in with a "bad crowd" and his dependence on "drugs and alcohol". [2] Chris Clarke complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item left the viewer with the impression that the youth’s death was the result of an overdose of marijuana....

SummaryA Frontline programme broadcast on 12 September 1993 focused on the electricity pricingarrangements between Comalco (NZ) Ltd and ECNZ and raised questions about the ratescharged to domestic and large commercial consumers. Comalco (NZ) Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd thatthe item lacked objectivity and left misleading and damaging impressions. In particular itobjected to the implication that Comalco's electricity was subsidised by domestic consumers,and to the suggestion that its recent pricing agreement with ECNZ was to be kept secret soas to avoid embarrassing the government in the pre-election period. Maintaining that an investigation of the pricing arrangements was in the public interest,TVNZ rejected all aspects of the complaint. It argued that the question about whether thearrangement was a subsidy or a discount was balanced by comment from Comalcoofficials and from energy analysts....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – complainants attended and participated in auction – complainants claimed that they would not be filmed – shown on programme – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 6 – irreconcilable conflict of facts as to particulars of the request not to film – decline to determine Standard 3 Guideline 3a Privacy Principle iii – no intentional intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A couple was shown making the final bid in the auction for a house during an episode of the reality series Location, Location, Location. The bid was unsuccessful as it failed to reach the reserve. The episode was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 17 July 2002. [2] BQ and CR, the couple making the bid, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Summary An excerpt from the performance of the Paul Taylor Dance Company was shown at the conclusion of One Network News broadcast on TV One on 25 November between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item, which he said showed naked men, breached acceptable standards of decency and also was offensive to children who might have been watching. TVNZ responded that all of the dancers, both men and women, were wearing patterned tights. It noted that ballet tights were part of the normal attire for both classical and modern dance performances. In the circumstances, it concluded that no standards were relevant. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Harang referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator Special: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker Bryan Bruce gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether the complainant, who was a “surprise” witness at the retrial, had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies relate to implication in the programme that the complainant gave misleading evidence – Authority not in a position to determine whether the programme was inaccurate in this respect – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-072:One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072 PDF477. 75 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-086:Paton-Simpson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-086 PDF458. 1 KB...