Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 59/94 Dated the 2nd day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 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: 41/95 Dated the 29th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RICHARD ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-064 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOWELANCO (NZ) LIMITED of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-161 Decision No: 1996-162 Dated the 21st day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATIVE PARTY Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard, regarding a 1News football match preview which included a montage of crowd shots. The complaint was about a crowd shot where a Palestinian flag was visible. The Authority has declined to determine the complaint on the grounds it concerned matters of personal preference and did not raise issues of potential harm which required the Authority’s intervention. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined) Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Motorway Patrol breached the privacy standard. A short segment of the programme focused on a Senior Constable attending a crash on an Auckland motorway. It featured footage of the complainant as a ‘Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to check on the person in the crashed vehicle. The Authority acknowledged the impact of the broadcast on the complainant, who said they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes and were not asked for consent. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, the Authority found the broadcast did not disclose information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that allowing an interviewee to wear what appeared to be a keffiyeh during an interview about the government’s introduction of new ‘move-on’ orders breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority found broadcasting the interviewee wearing this garment would not have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or have had the effect of encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, Jewish people. It noted, if the garment was in fact a keffiyeh, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men promo – language of characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour was self-deprecating and in tone of pantomime or slapstick comedy – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo acceptable during PGR programme – correctly classified – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – content of promo did not warrant an AO restriction – not likely to have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the comedy programme Two and a Half Men was broadcast on TV2 at approximately 7. 53pm on Sunday 4 May 2008 during an episode of Ugly Betty (PGR)....

Summary A news item on One Network News featured a New Zealand make-up artist, who specialised in painting naked bodies in all-over body paint. She was shown painting a female model for an assignment. An outline of the model’s breasts could be seen through the body paint. The item was broadcast on TV One on 26 April 1999, commencing at 6. 00 pm. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that it was offensive to show a naked woman’s breast, and the item would give young people the impression that it was okay to be half naked in public. TVNZ said that the item was not prurient, it was discreetly shot and cleverly demonstrated how the body-painting process provided an effective covering for the model. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog” – alleged frequent use of the word “fuck” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 23 September 2005. During the introductory sequence, the host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog”. Complaint [2] Malcolm Anderson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference to “wanking off a dog” was disgusting, and in breach of good taste and decency....

ComplaintWhat Now? PM – decriminalisation of cannabis – information intended for children – pictures of a joint being rolled – unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard G12 – visuals not consistent with voiceover commentary – unsuitable for children – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The decriminalisation of cannabis was the subject of an item on What Now? PM broadcast on TV2 on 13 July 2000 at about 5. 00pm. Footage accompanying the item showed a cannabis joint being rolled, and two people sharing a joint. Sharon Wilton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the visual content was unsuitable for inclusion in a programme intended for children. TVNZ explained that the purpose of the item was to inform children of the legislative moves to decriminalise cannabis and the position of MP Nandor Tanczos....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that two sex scenes in Nip/Tuck were too explicit for free-to-air television and breached standards of good taste and decency. One of the scenes included a threesome involving one of the lead characters. The viewer also complained about the use of offensive language during another scene in which a "phone sex artist" discussed throat surgery with her doctor. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ argued that the scenes were acceptable in the context of an AO-rated programme screening at 9. 30pm with a warning for adult sexual material. The broadcaster said the sex scenes were important to the development of the storyline, did not contain any explicit nudity, and were not pornographic. The Authority’s DecisionAs well as the contextual factors noted above (the programme's AO classification, the warning about sexual content, the 9....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host said that obese children “should be taken away from their parents and put in a car compactor” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the beginning of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 3 February 2009, the programme’s presenters outlined the upcoming items for the day. One host stated, “should obese children be taken away from their parents? That is what Australian experts are suggesting – well, some of them anyway. We’ll wade into the debate after 7”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Teenage Caveman – movie about teenagers in the future who fall in with a group of genetically-altered and indestructible mutants – complainant objected to scenes of group sexual intercourse between teenagers, discussion on female pubic hair, female masturbation, and a young woman “exploding and a very graphic display of her exposed organs” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – cumulative effect of challenging content – implied group sex and partial nudity intended to titillate – excessive drug and alcohol use – gratuitous violence and profanity – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] The movie Teenage Caveman was broadcast on TV2 at 12. 35am on 17 April 2006....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the balance standard regarding an episode of Breakfast that referred to New Zealand as Aotearoa. The complainant considered the name Aotearoa should not be used to replace the country’s official name. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine: Balance (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances)...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on 1 News about the release of the Department of Corrections’ strategy ‘Hōkai Rangi’, aimed at reducing the disproportionately high number of Māori in prisons, was unbalanced. The Authority recognised that the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance to which the balance standard applied, but found that the broadcaster provided sufficient balance for viewers. The item included a number of significant viewpoints on the issue, including comment from: Corrections Minister, Hon Kelvin Davis; justice campaigner, Sir Kim Workman; Corrections Chief Executive, Christine Stevenson; and the National Party’s spokesperson for Corrections, David Bennett. Hōkai Rangi was also widely reported on in other news media during the period of current interest....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Labour Party election programme which used the phrase ‘it’s about by Māori, for Māori’ was misleading on the basis the Aotearoa New Zealand Government is allegedly mostly funded by non-Māori taxpayers. The Authority held that a reasonable viewer would not understand this term to relate to government funding but to leadership and decision-making roles being held by Māori for Māori issues. The misleading programmes standard did not apply. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy), E4: Misleading Programmes...