Search Rapua

ComplaintTeachers – shag and fuck and their derivatives – frequent use – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) and Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Teachers, an eight part series, was broadcast weekly on TV One at 9. 30 on Monday evenings. Using the idiom of the staff and pupils, it told the story of a young teacher of English in a comprehensive school in England. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the episode broadcast on 13 August 2001 included offensive language when using the words "shag" and "fuck" and their derivatives. [3] In response, TVNZ described the series as "contemporary, gritty and humorous" and said that it was classified as AO, broadcast an hour after the AO watershed, and preceded with an explicit warning. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Place in Spain – man said “Jesus [bleep] Christ” during an argument – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of A Place in Spain was broadcast on TV One at 5pm on Wednesday 11 June 2008. The series followed Lee and Cheryl, a Welsh couple, on their dream of packing up their life in the United Kingdom and starting a snail farm in Spain. [2] At one point in the episode, Lee and Cheryl were shown in their new car having an argument about the directions being given by their satellite navigation system. During the argument, Lee said “Jesus [bleep] Christ” twice....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-168 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at a couple running the One World Foundation who had been banned from Samoa because of allegations regarding the legitimacy of their work – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainants were treated fairly – chosen interview excerpts fairly represented the complainants’ position – 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 10 March 2008, reported that “a New Zealand-based couple’s been banned from Samoa for life after being accused of taking freebies in the name of charity”....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-060 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND COMMITTEE FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF THE PARANORMAL INC. of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members: L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – reality programme in which contestants take part in repellent or frightening activities – contestants were required to tread in a vat containing live earthworms and were required to drink worm “juice” – allegedly offensive and not in interests of childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Guideline 9e – earthworms not animals under Guideline 9e – S1930 rating imposed by broadcaster indicated that children’s interests were acknowledged – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factor was screened at 7. 30pm on TV2 on 2 March 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factor as a “reality” programme in which the contestants are challenged to take part in repellent and frightening activities....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item explained where bank loans come from – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item gave accurate description of how bank loans are created – 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 20 October 2008, was introduced as follows: The global credit crunch is forcing more governments to prop up their banks and guarantee borrowing. So what does that mean for New Zealanders trying to get a loan? In tonight’s special report we send Garth Bray to find out where the money you borrow comes from. [2] Reporting from a kitchen, Mr Bray offered the following explanation: Think of a bank loan like baking a cake....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

SummaryA trailer for the AO-classified programme Water Rats was shown during the PGR-classified programme Party of Five at about 8. 03 pm on TV2 on 17 November 1998. Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the trailer showed a couple in bed, clearly naked and kissing. There was a clear inference that they were having sex, she contended. Given the time of broadcast, the behaviour shown was distressing, she wrote, and was best kept to private bedrooms. The trailer also did not show acceptable behaviour for the time band within which it was screened, Mrs Barker said. TVNZ responded that the scene in the trailer was very brief, contained no frontal nudity and only implied sexual activity. It had screened during a programme which contained references to sexual activity, and in context it was not unsuitable viewing for children under the guidance of an adult....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The first two episodes of a British dating game show, Naked Attraction, were broadcast on TVNZ 2 at 9. 45pm on Friday 27 October 2017, and 9. 30pm on Friday 3 November 2017. The essence of the programme is that a clothed individual selects a date from six naked individuals, who are gradually revealed in stages from the feet up, with no blurring or pixelation of nudity. Thirteen complainants referred their complaints about these episodes of Naked Attraction to the Authority, complaining that the programme contained a high level of full frontal nudity and sexual discussion, which was offensive and contrary to standards of good taste and decency. The complainants also submitted the programme was broadcast at a time on a weekend night when children were likely to be watching....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about legal proceedings brought against Claims Resolution Service Ltd breached the accuracy or fairness standards. The programme discussed the service provided by Bryan Staples and Claims Resolution Service Ltd to Christchurch home owners looking for help to resolve claims with their insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission after the Canterbury earthquakes. The Authority found that none of the statements made about the proceedings raised by the complainants were inaccurate or misleading. The Authority also found that the edited version of a phone call between Mr Staples and John Campbell that was broadcast fairly and accurately reflected the tenor of the views expressed by Mr Staples. Finally the Authority found that TVNZ gave Mr Staples a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment prior to the broadcast. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

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...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter made reference to ‘bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets’ in relation to a photo of a cruise ship. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was inaccurate and in poor taste. While derogatory, it did not reach the threshold for threatening current norms of good taste and decency. The comment was an off-the-cuff remark delivered in a light-hearted tone, without invective, and was obviously intended to be humorous. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter showed an image of a cruise ship anchored in Hawkes Bay, saying: …they’re not disgorging logs; they’re disgorging bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-093:Pryor and Corrigan and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-093 PDF588. 82 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-004:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-004 PDF205. 83 KB...

Summary District Court Judge Martin Beattie was acquitted on 1 August 1997 on a number of dishonesty charges after a jury trial. It was a high-profile case. On 27 July 1998, a news item revealed the contents of a High Court ruling made before the trial in which the judge had ruled inadmissible a report prepared by a QC at the request of the Chief District Court Judge in the early stages of the investigation. The item reported that the judgment disclosed the QC’s opinion that Judge Beattie was guilty of fraud. Mr Clayton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the QC’s opinion about the judge’s behaviour was "utterly irrelevant", and the disclosure not only breached broadcasting standards, but also invaded Judge Beattie’s privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Sunday – items discussed suppressed evidence from the David Bain trial that had been released by the courts – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsOne News Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item reported on the evidence released by the court in a neutral manner – contained comment from Mr Bain’s supporter Mr Karam – reporter explained reasons for the evidence being suppressed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Sunday Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item contained comment from those individuals whose evidence had been suppressed – contained comment from Mr Karam – Mr Bain treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard…...