Search Rapua

ComplaintShortland Street – episodes about a child of drug dealer in coma having taken a capsule of cannabis oil – drug dealer said she gave child small amounts of cannabis oil to calm him as he was ADHD – offensive – encouraged illegal behaviour – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a and Standard 2 – use of cannabis oil to treat ADHD child shown as unacceptable and irresponsible – no uphold Standards 4 and 5 – do not apply to fictional programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The treatment of a child "Max", who had taken a capsule of cannabis oil was a story line in an episode of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 17 July 2002....

ComplaintNew Zealand Festival: Virginity – language – "did you fuck him? " – offensive FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – not gratuitous – acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme New Zealand Festival: Virginity was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 19 February 2001. One of the seven women who spoke of their first sexual experiences reported that she was later asked by an acquaintance, "did you fuck him? " Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "fuck" was grossly offensive. He argued that the classification of a programme as AO and the inclusion of a warning did not excuse the broadcaster from the requirement to maintain standards of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – segment called “Good Sorts” profiled volunteer fireman – interviewee used the phrase “good bastard” twice – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language used in complimentary way – not aggressive or abusive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News was an unclassified news programme targeted at adults – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – One News was an unclassified news programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – no discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

TVNZ's request to the Authority to recall Decision 1999-053 and not to issue that decision for publication declined. A PDF of Decision 1999-054 can be downloaded here: Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-054 PDF234. 41 kB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-038:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-038 PDF377. 55 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-024:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-024 PDF337. 02 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-087:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-087 PDF842. 45 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-059 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOUTH ISLAND HOUSE RELOCATORS LTD of Springs Junction Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryAn item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 1 October 1998 between 7. 00-7. 30 pm, examined the Hikoi of Hope. It featured a representative from the Anglican Church and a critic of the hikoi, each being interviewed by the presenter. Ms Larkin complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the presenter’s introduction to the item was insulting, and contained derogatory descriptions, such as "the Hiccup of Hypocrisy". The presenter’s statements made it clear, she said, that the item would not be presented in a fair and neutral manner. TVNZ responded that while the Hikoi of Hope was a serious attempt to draw attention to the reality of poverty in New Zealand, the Anglican Church’s sponsorship of it had been controversial....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds promo – featured a woman unbuttoning her shirt to reveal her bra – implied she was a prostitute who had been killing her clients – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, programme classification and children's interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) and Standard 9 (children's interests) – promo contained adult themes – not suitable for child viewers or for broadcast during the news – PGR classification incorrect – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not applicable – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the crime drama Criminal Minds was broadcast on TV One at 6....

ComplaintNews item about magazine for divorced people – offensive behaviour – picture of nude couple having sex FindingsStandard G2 – not inappropriate subject matter – momentary image – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Divorced people were providing a new market for entrepreneurs in the magazine industry, according to a news report on One News broadcast on 28 September 2000 at about 6. 20pm. Pages which were shown from a magazine included a picture of an apparently nude couple. Glenyss Barker, secretary of Viewers for Television Excellence (VOTE), complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the picture, which she said showed a nude couple having sex. She said it was inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children would be watching television....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ugly Betty promo – classified G – contained sexual themes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – content of promo required a higher classification of PGR – promo should not have screened during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – content of promo was more suitable for a mature audience – should not have been broadcast during a G programme children were likely to be watching – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the comedy programme Ugly Betty was broadcast on TV2 at 7....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-007 Dated the 13th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J and J McDONAGH of Masterton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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 soccer game between Croatia and Yugoslavia ended in a riot, according to a news item on One Network News broadcast on TV One on 19 August 1999 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. The footage which accompanied the item showed baton-wielding police, players and spectators fighting on the soccer field. Gordon Sunde complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had been fabricated and was totally misleading. The game, he said, had been played without incident. The video clip shown related to a game which had been played between the same two countries in 1991 and had no relationship to the one being reported. He sought an apology and correction. TVNZ responded to the complaint informally and advised that a correction would be prepared for broadcast. It explained that the footage had been used by mistake and apologised to Mr Sunde....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-103 Dated the 14th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IVAN A HANSEN of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-004 Dated the 29th day of January 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-118 Dated the 19th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J D�ERRICO of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....