Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-174:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-174 PDF216. 25 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-068:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-068 PDF353. 15 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-013 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS 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: 1996-121 Decision No: 1996-122 Dated the 19th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by P G CURRAN 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: 1996-172 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GEORGE W GRAY of Maungaturoto Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-030 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by A J RULE of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-056 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by G P COSTELLO of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An ACT Party political advertisement broadcast around 7. 00pm on TV One on 18 November included a promise to voters that a vote for the party would ensure a "Fair, full and final treaty settlement". Mr Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the advertisement, which he said was broadcast at 6. 54pm made a claim which was incorrect, inaccurate, and designed to confuse the voting public deliberately. He maintained that ACT did not have the power to make any such promise as treaty issues were matters between the British monarch and what he called the Maori principal. TVNZ advised that its response to the complaint was limited to whether or not the advertisement accurately reflected ACT’s policy. That Mr Powell and others disagreed with that policy was not, TVNZ continued, sufficient cause for a formal complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding a 21- month prison sentence given to a man found guilty of illegally selling his large gun collection on the black market – discussion about whether sentences in New Zealand were long enough – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – viewers only provided with one significant viewpoint – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7. 10am on Thursday 18 December 2008, included an interview with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. The interview focused on the previous day’s sentencing of a man to 21 months imprisonment for illegally selling his large gun collection on the black market....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – footage of interpreter during murder trial – High Court ruled that interpreter’s image was not to be broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – disclosure of complainant’s presence at trial would not be considered highly offensive by an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 23 July 2009 reported that the Justice Minister was calling for the repeal of the defence of provocation, following the conclusion of two murder trials. [2] The item included footage of both murder trials. Two brief shots of one of the defendants sitting in the dock were shown, with a woman sitting alongside the dock....

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – “channel-surfing” segment – brief shot of “viewer’s” hands masturbating a penis-shaped dildo in front of the television – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – penis was obviously not real – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10pm on TV2 on 16 November 2007, contained a segment in which a “viewer” channel-surfed through a number of television programmes, some fabricated. The segment was constructed from the viewer’s point of view, so that the audience could see only the viewer’s hands. On three occasions, the viewer changed the channel to TV3, which was screening the breakfast show Sunrise. Each time, the viewer’s hands were shown doing something in the foreground....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – statement that the average household spends 20 percent more on electricity than it did 20 years ago – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the statement referred to 20 percent of household budget, not 20 percent more money – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 31 May 2007, discussed the recent death of a woman whose power had been switched off by an electricity company. The reporter said the woman’s death had: …thrown the spotlight on the huge increases in power prices in the past 20 years. The average household now spends 20 percent more on electricity....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – repeat episode at 7am on a Sunday morning – reported controversy over recent photographs in Pavement magazine – showed photographs of topless 19-year-old girl – allegedly in breach of children’s interests. FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A repeat episode of the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast on TV One at 7am on Sunday 29 October 2006. One item reported controversy over a recent magazine spread in Pavement magazine, which some people argued contained sexualised images of girls as young as 11 years of age. The programme featured photographs from the magazine, including several shots of a topless 19-year-old girl, and showed advertisements with models adopting suggestive poses....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – “The Monster of Berhampore” – case of Wallace Lake who ran the Berhampore Children’s Home – accused of sexually molesting children – police had received 13 complaints and decided to charge Mr Lake before he died – questioned whether Presbyterian Support Services who ran the home had done enough to help complainants – allegedly unbalanced and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – did not encourage viewers to disrespect principles of law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – programme discussed controversial issue of public importance – programme did assume Mr Lake’s guilt – TVNZ contacted Mr Lake’s solicitor and family as Mr Lake deceased – they declined to comment – TVNZ made reasonable efforts to get other perspective on allegations – complainant identified no other information or means by which to refute allegations against…...

ComplaintFair Go – comments about complainant which collects membership fees for fitness centres – complaint that item unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 – one aspect of discussion of credit contracts omitted relevant information provided by complainant – unfair – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Some of the activities of Adfit Membership Services Ltd, a company which collects membership fees for more than 100 fitness centres, were investigated in an item on Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 10 September 2003. Fair Go is a consumer rights programme which looks at issues from the consumers' perspective....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Probation Services Manager – conduct of the interviewer – biased – unfair Findings Standards 4 and 6 – live interview – not unbalanced – interviewee presented viewpoint – dealt with fairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with the Manager of the Probation Service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 13 February 2003. The interview centred around the release of a report by the Probation Service regarding its management of an offender while on parole. [2] John Blackaby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that the interviewee had been dealt with unfairly, because of the "bully-boy" conduct of the presenter....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...