Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a One News item "fundamentally misrepresented" the Electoral Finance Bill by saying, first, that "new rules for election spending will mean big donations to political parties' campaigns will no longer be kept secret", and second, that "other secret donors would also be outed – donations over $5000 would have to be declared”. The complainant said the Bill required no greater degree of disclosure of the amounts of donations and the identities of donors than the existing law. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the story was about third party activities at election time, rather than donations to political parties. As third parties would have to register with the Electoral Commission if they intended to spend more than $5,000 on an election campaign, their identity would no longer be secret....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Thing Called Love – promo – AO rated programme – promo screened at 7. 10pm – PGR time band – host programme rated G – allegedly offensive, contrary to children’s interests and incorrectly classifiedFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – PGR-rated promo broadcast during G-rated host programme in breach regardless of time band – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – PGR rating acknowledged children’s interests – minority – promo should have been rated AO – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the AO-classified programme, A Thing Called Love, was screened on Prime Television around 7. 10pm on 19 August 2005, during the PGR time band....

ComplaintThe Book Group – drama – male sex scene – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Book Group is a series about a group of people who regularly meet to discuss books, and is described by the broadcaster as a “quirky and unpredictable drama”. An episode broadcast on 24 September 2003 at 10. 05pm on TV One included a scene of two men having sex. [2] Michael Beedell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was offensive and “inappropriate for public viewing”. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the scene did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Beedell referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintSpace – interview with two female porn actors – promoted their profession and business interests – no information about full activities of interviewees – unbalanced – abusive and objectionable language in complainant’s final comment FindingsStandard G6 – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Two visiting female porn actors were interviewed on Space, broadcast on TV2 between 10. 25pm and midnight on 9 November 2001. The questions focused mainly on how they became involved in the industry, and one of the interviewees asked viewers interested in entering the industry to contact them. [2] Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the interview was unbalanced as no one spoke about the degrading aspects of the industry....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...

ComplaintHolmes – cure for acne – drug identified – side effects not reported – misleading – unbalanced – partial FindingsStandard G6 – not controversial issue to which the standard applies – decline to determine; other standards not relevant ObservationIssue to be considered when free-to-air code is revised This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The availability of an effective treatment for acne was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 23 March 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. A dermatologist and a doctor were interviewed, as well as two young people who had both been successfully treated by a named drug. The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd (PHARMAC) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was misleading and unbalanced. In particular it expressed its concern that the broadcaster had been used to promote a prescription medicine....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News Now – item contained footage of teenage girl beating another and two girls fighting – item was not preceded by a warning – broadcaster upheld the complaint under responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming), Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Standard 10 (violence) – item carried a high level of public interest and would have been acceptable for broadcast if preceded by a warning – TVNZ correct to uphold the complaint but action taken was sufficient in the circumstances – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During TVNZ News Now, broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 8am on Sunday 27 March 2011, the news reader introduced a story, saying: There’s serious concern from schools about the rise in physical violence among teenage girls....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – use of the word “shit” – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter used the word “shit” as an expression of his pain and frustration – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 23 March 2011, one of the presenters discussed his frustration with attempting to assemble a “spring-free” trampoline. Having nearly finished putting the trampoline together, the presenter discovered that he had inserted the rods under the trampoline into the wrong holes. He remarked, “So we have to undo all those? Shit. ” He went on to say, “Getting them out is almost worse than getting them in, and more hazardous....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported on Australia’s recent attempts to reduce pollution by introducing a carbon tax scheme – referred to “pollution”, “polluters” and “carbon” – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item used simplified language to convey scientific concepts to the average viewer – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 July 2011, reported on Australia’s recent attempts to reduce pollution by introducing a carbon tax scheme. The item contained the following statements:“Australia is following New Zealand’s lead on reducing pollution by unveiling a new carbon tax scheme. ” (newsreader) “The science is clear. Our planet is warming. That warming is caused by carbon pollution by human activity and we need to cut carbon pollution....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-073–074:Sharp and Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-073, 1993-074 PDF698. 63 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-020:Fish and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-020 PDF465 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on One News reported on overseas studies showing that even low levels of air pollution can be harmful. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment that ‘the European Union’s recommended standard… is even more stringent than the standard here’, and the accompanying graphic, were inaccurate. Taken in the context of the whole item, the statement was sufficiently clarified so viewers would not have been misled. The key message was that air pollution is a serious problem impacting on public health, so New Zealand should consider adopting standards applied in other countries, not currently applied here. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction[1] An item on One News reported on overseas studies showing that even low levels of air pollution can be harmful....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-015:Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015 PDF1008. 74 KB...

ComplaintStrassman – fuck – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – assessment of context required by standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits bordered on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 5 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Grant Nesdale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. He argued that television should "upgrade" values, rather than denigrate them. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It also said that television’s role was to reflect society’s values....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Shortland Street featured a storyline about the developing relationship of a young same-sex couple, and included several scenes of the two kissing, including shots of them from the waist up in bed together. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these scenes breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority acknowledged there is value in programmes such as Shortland Street, which provides entertainment and reflects contemporary society and evolving social issues and attitudes. Shortland Street is a PGR-classified medical drama series that has screened in the 7pm timeband for many years. It is well known for featuring adult themes. In that context the level of sexual content did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, nor would be likely to adversely affect any child viewers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the case of a Palmerston North schoolgirl who had been abducted earlier in the day, and subsequently located and reunited with her family. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the girl and her sisters. The item did not disclose any private information about the girl; the details given were in the public domain at the time of the broadcast and carried high public interest, as they may have assisted with the search for her abductor. The girl’s sisters were not identifiable in the item and therefore their privacy was not breached. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News reported on the case of a Palmerston North schoolgirl who had been abducted earlier in the day....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Cold Feet, a British comedy-drama series which followed the intertwining lives of three couples at different stages in their relationships, contained sex scenes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the sex scenes breached the children’s interests and good taste and decency standards. Cold Feet was not targeted at child viewers, it was classified Adults Only and broadcast during an appropriate timeband, and was preceded by a specific warning for sex scenes. The level of sexual content was not overly explicit and was justified by the episode’s narrative context. Overall the broadcaster adequately ensured child viewers could be protected from adult content, and the episode would not have offended or surprised the general viewing audience....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 12/94 Dated the 5th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHARLES B. HARPER of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...