Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spongebob Squarepants – cartoon programme – characters went on a “panty raid” to steal women’s underwear – allegedly in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – content not unsuitable for children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The cartoon Spongebob Squarepants, which follows the activities of characters in an underwater community, was broadcast on weekdays at 4pm on TV2. The episode screened on 31 August 2006 was about an ageing crab who was attempting to recapture his youth with a night on the town. The characters suggested that they go on a “panty raid” to steal women’s underwear. To the crab’s horror, he discovered that the raid was on his mother’s house and the underwear belonged to her....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about marketing 42 Below vodka in the American market – featured interview with gay bar owner – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – consent given for interview – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 12 June 2005 featured a marketing manager, James Dale, who had been appointed to promote a New Zealand vodka called 42 Below in the American market. [2] The item included an interview with the owner of a gay bar, John Libonati, who had sent Mr Dale an email condemning the disparaging comments Mr Dale had made about gay culture. Mr Libonati said that he had received a reply from James Dale which had included a number of insults....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item parodied “naked” news programmes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sequence unnecessarily lengthy – gratuitously explicit – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Eating Media Lunch is a series that lampoons aspects of the media both in New Zealand and overseas. The use of semi-naked news presenters in some countries was featured in the item broadcast on TV2 starting at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 15 November 2005. [2] The item presented the “Fuck News” which was said to originate in France. The item showed two partly dressed presenters who seemed to be having sexual intercourse while reading the news....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported that Plunketline telephone service to be replaced by broader Healthline service – Minister of Health questioned on whether her support for Healthline was consistent with election pledge in 1999 to support Plunketline – allegedly unbalanced and interview edited unfairly Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item omitted Minister’s explanation for the change of her political point of view – unbalanced – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item omitted Minister’s comment on central issue – unfair – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The replacement of Plunketline, a telephone service for caregivers, with a broader Healthline telephone service was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One on 7 July 2004....

ComplaintBreakfast – reference to song "Loyal" – presenter said viewers who disliked that song were "stuffed" – vulgar – offensive language FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The presenter used the phrase "If you don’t like that song, then you’re stuffed" when referring to the song "Loyal" played after a magazine item on the Louis Vuitton Cup for yachting. The item was included in the programme, Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am on 19 November 2002. [2] Dr McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the expression was vulgar and unacceptable in a news programme....

ComplaintOne News – item about gender income differences – unbalanced – inaccurate – denigration and discrimination of male employers FindingsStandard 4 – range of perspectives presented – no uphold Standard 5 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to male employers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A One News programme, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 20 June 2002, featured an item which sought to explain census figures which showed that women were earning less than their male counterparts. [2] Peter Zohrab, on behalf of the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the news item was unbalanced, inaccurate, and encouraged denigration and discrimination against male employers....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: 1951 – waterfront dispute – focused on experiences of watersiders – unbalanced FindingsStandard G6 – approach taken outlined at outset of programme – authorial documentary – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Documentary New Zealand: 1951 examined aspects of the major waterfront dispute which occurred in that year. The programme comprised mainly personal recollections of some people involved. It was broadcast at 8. 30pm on 16 July 2001 on TV One. R B Morton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme lacked balance. While it looked at the plight of the watersiders’ families, he said, it did not examine the irresponsible working practices of the watersiders and their effect on New Zealand. In response, TVNZ said that the programme had referred to the way the dispute developed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on New Zealand protestor’s decision to travel to Gaza with his son as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla – commented on recent Israeli commando raid on another aid flotilla – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on one man – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Close Up was an unclassified current affairs programme – item would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-044:Hansen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-044 PDF347. 71 KB...

A news item on the centenary celebrations of the Chinese Communist Party reported that as part of President Xi Jinping’s speech he said ‘anyone opposing China will have their heads bashed against a great wall of steel’. The complainant alleged this was inaccurate and unbalanced, mainly because TVNZ had cut off the full quote, which clarifies the ‘great wall of steel’ is forged by ‘1. 4 billion Chinese people’ and therefore conveys a more metaphorical meaning. The Authority found the item did not breach the accuracy standard on the basis that the broadcast was not likely to mislead viewers as a result of omitting part of President Xi’s sentence, and it was not inaccurate for TVNZ to use the more literal translation of ‘heads bashed’ over ‘collide’ in its translation....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-042 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-087 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaint by ENID BANCROFT of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Paramedics, which twice played footage of a young man suffering an allergic reaction exclaiming ‘Fuck, I can’t breathe’, with the audio censored so the word was partially silenced, and the subtitles uncensored. The episode aired during an M classification time band, at 7. 30pm, and was preceded by a warning which stated ‘This programme is rated M. It contains coarse language. ’ The ‘ML’ rating was also broadcast after each advertisement break, with the ‘L’ advisory symbol indicating ‘language may offend’. In the context, the language used would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress, and was not beyond what viewers would have reasonably expected from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News item looking at the housing crisis on Waiheke Island. One affected resident who was interviewed said he ‘[felt] like a gypsy wandering around, living out of suitcases and boxes’. The complaint was that the use of the word ‘gypsy’ was derogatory and evokes prejudicial biases towards the Roma community. While the Authority has previously acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the word, in this particular context it did not outweigh the interviewee’s right to express himself and describe his experience. This expression and the item as a whole carried high value and public interest and did not warrant regulatory intervention or restricting the important right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 107/94 Dated the 7th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Clive Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of exclamations including ‘oh my God’, ‘holy crap’ and ‘bloody’ in an episode of House Rules, broadcast at 7. 30pm, breached the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the language used would not have caused audiences undue offence or harm and it was not beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

A promotion for Off the Grid with Colin and Manu included a clip of Manu asking Colin to ‘stop slurping’ when he eats and saying, ‘My mum would have smacked you in the head, you know’. The complainant alleged the comment was a breach of the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. The Authority found the comment, in the context, was unlikely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience. The Authority also found it was unlikely to encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise engage in serious antisocial activity. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...