Search Rapua

BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-070 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR B BALACHANDRAN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper, who were involved in a High Court case about their branding – reported that Tamsin Cooper's silk velvet coats, labelled as 100% silk, had been tested and the fabric was “not 100% silk, but mostly viscose” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Tamsin Cooper – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on 3 December 2007 at 7. 30pm on TV One, discussed a High Court action involving fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

SummaryA special Assignment programme broadcast on TV One on 31 May 1998 at 6. 30pm focused on the trial of Malcolm Rewa, accused and found guilty of a large number of sexual attacks on women. It replaced the advertised Our World programme. Mrs Mitchell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the time of the broadcast, which she said breached standards of good taste and decency, and the fact that it replaced a programme watched unsupervised by many children. She noted that no warning had been given about the change to the schedule, but even if it had, she observed, many families would not have been aware of the warning. In its response, TVNZ noted that Rewa’s trial, which had concluded the previous day, had elicited a great deal of public interest....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict of interest and declined to take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about proposed Private Member’s Bill – said “a National MP’s plan to give more young people a chance of a job looks doomed to fail” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not leave the impression that the bill was a positive thing – focused on the fact that the bill looked set to fail – appropriate range of significant perspectives presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – introduction did not state as a fact that the bill would give young people more jobs – only stated that this was “a National MP’s plan” – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Six Feet Under – promo – broadcast on two occasions at about 7. 00pm – portrayed character being kidnapped in his funeral van and later assaulted, robbed and left in dark alley – allegedly unsuitable for children in view of violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) and Guidelines 9a, 9e and 9f – PGR rated promo shown in G time – previously ruled unacceptable – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Six Feet Under was broadcast during One News, on two occasions, between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 27 and 28 September 2004. Six Feet Under is an AO classified programme which screens at 9. 40pm. [2] The promo showed a male character, David, being kidnapped in his own funeral van, and later assaulted, robbed and left in a dark alley....

ComplaintReel Life: The Truth about Lesbian Sex – documentary examining lesbian sex – indecent – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – majority – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Reel Life: The Truth about Lesbian Sex was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on Wednesday 2 July 2003. The programme examined lesbian sex, focussing on lesbian relationships. [2] Mr Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item showed scenes of a sexual nature which breached the standard of good taste and decency. [3] Mr Tod’s complaint to TVNZ maintained that the demonstration of sexual aids, combined with the explicit instruction on the performance of several sexual acts, was appalling and indecent. Mr Tod also stated that the programme inappropriately encouraged lesbian sex as an exciting and viable alternative to heterosexual sex....

ComplaintHolmes – footage of English coach’s half-time speech – offensive language – unsuitable for childrenFindings(1) Standard G2 – use of language not endorsed – no uphold (2) Standard G12 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage from a soccer coach’s half-time speech to players which contained strong language was broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 27 April 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage contained repeated and gratuitous offensive language. He contended that the item was offensive and unsuitable for children. TVNZ responded that the item was linked to new research findings that such angry motivational speeches did not assist performance, and maintained that the item was of topical interest....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV-2010-485-002007 PDF3. 33 MBComplaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Hung – episode included oral sex scene and female genital nudity – broadcast at approximately 10. 10pm – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – majority – genital nudity and oral sex scene explicit and gratuitous – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An episode of the TV series Hung was broadcast on TV One at 9. 50pm on Monday 22 March 2010. Hung was a comedy-drama series centred around the life of Ray Drecker, a divorced and financially struggling father who decided to use his large penis to make money as a male prostitute. [2] The episode revolved around Ray’s mounting financial troubles, forcing him to consider lowering his fees....

ComplaintHolmes – canal development in Whitianga – ministerial order to start again the consents process – angry reaction among residents – no comment from Minister – unbalanced FindingsStandard G6 – balance achieved throughout item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The angry reaction in Whitianga to the Conversation Minister’s order to consider again aspects of the consents process for the proposed canal development in the town, was covered in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 16 May 2001. Dorothy Stafford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the purpose of the item was to condemn the delay, it had suggested that the project had been terminated and had given only cursory treatment of the legal reasons that required the Minister to take action. Accordingly, she wrote, the item was unbalanced....

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Goober Brothers – part of Studio 2 – inventors of “Ja-Handal” – man performing handstands – dog urinated on man’s face – allegedly offensive and not in children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – type of humour depicted appeals to children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Goober Brothers was shown as part of the children’s programme Studio 2. It was a New Zealand-made series of two-minute items featuring mad scientists who come up with weird inventions. The “Ja-Handal”, a jandal for hands, was the invention shown on the episode broadcast on TV2 at 3. 20pm on 16 April 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: 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 surprise witness at the retrial had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to not include viewpoints of the defence and David Bain – not upheld – Daryl Young was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – it was an authorial documentary approached from a particular perspective as envisaged by guideline 4b…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast of the personal views of certain celebrities who supported changing the flag resulted in an unbalanced and partial programme. While the item featured several celebrities in support of the alternative flag, it also mentioned some who supported the current flag. In the context of the item this was a sufficient acknowledgement of significant viewpoints on the issue. Furthermore, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the different perspectives on the flag referendum issue. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News promoted the new single from New Zealand singer-songwriter, Lorde. It featured clips taken from the music video for Lorde’s single, ‘Green Light’. In the clips, the singer could be seen leaning out of a car window and later dancing on the car roof. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was in breach of the law and order standard by encouraging reckless driving. The music video, and the news item’s promotion of it, did not actively encourage audiences to break the law, or otherwise promote criminal or serious antisocial activity, taking into account the context. The Authority found that viewers would have understood the singer’s actions to have taken place in the ‘fantasy’ realm of the music video, which made sense within the fictional narrative of the song....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Night at the Classic – AO comedy programme broadcast at 10pm and preceded by warning, contained swearing and sexual references – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – swearing and sexual material were permissible in the context of an AO comedy programme screened at 10pm and preceded by a specific warning – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified and screened in an appropriate timeslot – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A Night at the Classic, a late-night comedy series featuring New Zealand comedians, contained swearing and sexual references. The programme was classified Adults Only (AO) and was broadcast at 10pm on 3 January 2013 on TV One....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-027–028:Kyrke-Smith Family and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-027, 1993-028717. 05 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...