Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-133 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ELAINE HADFIELD of Blenheim Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary There was a tense debate at the Annual General Meeting of the Hero Trust, according to an item on Queer Nation broadcast on TV2 at 11. 00pm on 5 October 1999. The meeting rejected a proposal to wind up the Trust, and a new Board was elected, the report continued. Several people who had been present at the meeting were interviewed. Kat Jackson of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview with a woman who had attended the meeting implied that she had the authority and knowledge to speak on behalf of the Trust. Ms Jackson said that the woman had unsuccessfully stood for a position on the Trust and was not empowered to speak on its behalf. She claimed that the broadcast of the interview without mention of this fact resulted in the item being unbalanced and partial....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the language used in a post-match interview on 1 News. The Southland Rugby captain used the phrase ‘shove it up their arse’ in response to a question on what he would say to ‘the detractors’. The Authority found this was low-level coarse language, within audience expectations, and recognised the value of allowing interviewees to express themselves in their own words. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

A 1 News item reported on studies showing an increase in emperor penguin numbers in the Antarctic, followed by ‘a word of caution’ about the danger posed to the penguin population by climate change. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the second part of the piece, which included a forecast that the global population of emperor penguins could decrease by half by the end of this century, was based on ‘unproven science’. Considering, in particular, the subject matter, language and manner of presentation, the Authority found viewers were likely to interpret the comments and predictions as analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Given the wide social acceptance of the existence and predicted impacts of climate change, the Authority did not consider the item discussed a ‘controversial issue’. Therefore the balance standard and the requirement to present alternative viewpoints did not apply....

*Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics and included an interview with Mr Hager. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the Seven Sharp host was biased and treated Mr Hager unfairly. The host’s comments were clearly his opinion, and Mr Hager was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forward his position. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp was introduced by the hosts, Mike Hosking and Toni Street, as follows: Hosking: So, question: are we shocked at what Nicky Hager has in his book, Dirty Politics? In a word, I think no. it is not the big exposé Hager claims it is; there is no smoking gun....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp the presenter Hilary Barry welcomed a temporary presenter, Matt Chisholm, who responded by saying ‘it’s bloody good to be here’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘bloody’ breached the good taste and decency standard, finding the use of the term in the context of this programme was not inappropriate or unnecessary. The Authority has consistently found this expression to be colloquial language commonly used as an exclamation in our society. The Authority noted that Seven Sharp is aimed at adult viewers and the expression was not intended to be aggressive or pejorative. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm by the use of this term did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-025:Gray and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-025 PDF1. 23 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-072:One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072 PDF477. 75 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-062:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-062 PDF276. 59 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand – contestants were required to crawl face up between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – 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 9 September 2005. During one task, contestants were required to crawl, face up, between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint Mo Show – interview with makers of and participants in a pornographic film – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – gratuitous sexual activities – uphold Standard 9 – not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The making of a pornographic film near Los Angeles was shown in a segment of the Mo Show broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 3 September 2002. The Mo Show is targeted at a young adult audience and features two New Zealand comedians presenting events they encounter in a number of countries, focusing on popular music and film. [2] Lois Durward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment about pornographic film-making near Los Angeles was offensive and unsuitable for younger viewers....

ComplaintOne News – item reporting preliminary hearing of private prosecution of Constable A for murder – report of evidence of prosecution witness – unbalanced – biased – broadcaster’s response to complainant assumed his sympathy for Constable A – complainant argues that assumption influenced determination FindingsStandard 4 – coverage of trial ongoing – day’s coverage balanced – no uphold Standard 6 and guideline 6a – one day’s evidence reported fairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The evidence given by a prosecution witness about events he had seen in Waitara on the morning of the shooting of Steven Wallace was dealt with in a news item which reported the second day of the private murder prosecution of Constable A. The item was included on One News broadcast on TV One on 22 January 2002 between 6. 00–7. 00pm....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male sex scene – sodomy – breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 23 July 2002 at 9. 35pm on TV One included a scene of two males having sex. [2] N N Rodley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was too graphic, and that he had "never seen two males copulating on TV. " [3] In 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 response, Mr Rodley referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item used the word “gay” in the context of reporting on influx of homosexual couples from Australia getting married in New Zealand as civil unions are not legally recognised in Australia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – “gay” is a commonly accepted and widely used term for homosexuals – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Two and a Half Men – promo broadcast at 2. 10pm contained sexual innuendo and the word “penis” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo screened during chat show targeted at adults and in AO timeslot – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – host programme, while rated G, was not targeted at children and broadcast in AO time-band – sexual content was sufficiently inexplicit and promo light-hearted and humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – host programme targeted at adults and broadcast during AO timeslot – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....