Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – two items about allegations of sexual abuse against former church worker – described in second item as “sexual monster” – named and photographs shown – alleged breach of privacy – second item included recent footage of church worker allegedly taken without permissionFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (i), and (iv) – disclosure was a breach of privacy principle (i) but justified in the public interest – not upheld Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (iii) – footage of man taken from public place – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Allegations of sexual abuse by the former supervisor at an orphanage run by the Presbyterian Church in the 1970s were made in items on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on Paris Hilton going to jail – presenter made comments about Ms Hilton and threw a box of tissues over her shoulder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, fairness, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter acted in a light-heated and off-the-cuff manner – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter expressed her own opinion in a light-hearted way – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item would not have disturbed child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby – comedy series about a politically incorrect relief teacher – 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] Episode three of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, a comedy series about a politically incorrect teacher in a New Zealand school, was screened on TV One on 20 May 2005 at 9. 35pm. [2] The programme’s storyline involved the discovery of a used condom in the reading recovery area of the school, and the subsequent revelation that a young female teacher had been sexually involved with a male student....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The documentary Swipe with Caution investigated the use of online dating apps, including interviews with relevant experts and dating app users, as well as detailing specific case studies. One of those case studies involved the complainant, who was convicted of sexual violation and assault after meeting with Ms X through a dating app. Ms X, through an actor, retold her story of the night. The complainant considered the broadcast was inaccurate and portrayed him unfairly. He argued Ms X’s recollections were presented as matters of proven fact but were inconsistent with the agreed facts identified in the Court’s sentencing decision. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the particular segment had high public value, as it involved a survivor telling her story, and was otherwise materially accurate....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a news report on 1News breached several standards, by using the phrase Hamas ‘fighters’, rather than Hamas ‘terrorists’. The Authority found the choice of word could not reasonably be said to encourage the different treatment of Jewish or Israeli people, devalue their reputation, or embed negative stereotypes about them. Under accuracy, the Authority found the word was not inaccurate, was not material in the context of the broadcast as a whole, and there was no harm at a level justifying limitation of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and editorial independence. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance and Fairness...

The Authority received a complaint about a promo for a scheduled programme Seven Sharp which was viewed on TVNZ’s Facebook page. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under s11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority acknowledged that it raised complex issues of jurisdiction arising from the online environment, which had not yet been determined by the Authority. Taking into account its assessment of the substance of the complaint, which it considered was unlikely to result in a finding of a breach of standards, the Authority declined to determine the complaint. Declined to determine: Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a segment on Police Ten 7 breached the discrimination and denigration standard. A man called a woman who had called the police a ‘nosey motherf***ing white c***’. The Authority found in the context of the long-running series, and the particular programme, this comment did not reach the threshold for a finding that it encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

ComplaintHolmes – lifting of moratorium on commercial release of genetically modified organisms – studio debate – “Trust and Country Image” report discussed – complainant maintained he accurately quoted report – presenter allegedly misrepresented report – presenter allegedly unfairly criticised complainant Findings Standard 5 – presenter’s introductory statement on report inaccurate – upheld Standard 5 – presenter’s criticism a question of fairness, not accuracy – issue considered under Standard 6 Standard 6 – presenter’s vehement interjection amounted to accusation of deliberate misrepresentation – content, manner and tone of interjection an unfair overreaction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 23 October 2003 dealt with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms....

ComplaintOne News – footage of atrocities in Chechnya – disturbing and alarming – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard V16 – no warning – broadcaster did not demonstrate it was mindful of children – footage graphic and disturbing – uphold Decision No: 2000-033 distinguished ObservationStandard V12 – not cited – potential uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage of atrocities committed by the Russian army in Chechnya was broadcast on One News on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 25 February 2000. A body was seen being pushed off a truck, and another was shown being dragged by the heels behind a truck. There were also shots of more bodies being buried by soldiers. John Shrapnell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unacceptable to show graphic shots of such atrocities in the early evening....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tiger’s Tail – movie contained scene which combined sex and violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order and violence FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – guideline 10c – depiction of rape required pre-broadcast warning – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – movie did not glamorise rape, or otherwise promote or condone rape – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Tiger’s Tail was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 31 October 2010....

ComplaintTipping the Velvet – promo – "lesbian sex scenes" – 7. 30pm – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9 – not alarming or distressing for children – majority – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Scenes and dialogue of an intimate nature between females from the television drama, Tipping the Velvet, were broadcast in a promo on TV One at 7. 30pm on Sunday 4 May 2003. [2] Robin Watson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo contained lesbian sex scenes which were entirely unsuitable for child viewers and, therefore, inappropriate for broadcast during family viewing time....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – showed magazine photograph which reported that celebrities Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson had moved into a flat together – photograph included women’s Chihuahua dogs – presenter said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together” – allegedly offensive, unfair and deceptiveFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10. 00pm on 5 April 2005, referred to an issue of New Zealand Woman’s Weekly featuring a photograph of celebrity flatmates Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson, and their pet dogs. The presenter referred to the dogs and said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together”. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unfair to the named celebrities....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 69/95 Decision No: 70/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY of Auckland and PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld complaints about three broadcasts concerning Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s (also known as Posie Parker) entry into New Zealand for her ‘Let Women Speak’ events. The complainant was concerned the broadcasts were unfair towards Parker, homosexual people (by grouping them with transgender people) and women, and that the broadcasts misrepresented Parker and the Let Women Speak events. The Authority declined to determine aspects of the complaints, given similar findings in recent decisions, and otherwise found the broadcasts did not breach the applicable broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness; Declined to Determine: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all of the circumstances)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on rising gang membership, which featured archival footage of gang members. The complainant said the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, balance and accuracy standards on the basis the footage promoted gang activity/membership and misrepresented the current situation where gang patches and insignia are banned in public. In the context of the item, the Authority did not consider the likely impact of the visual content was to encourage illegal or antisocial behaviour. It also found the content was unlikely to mislead reasonable viewers regarding current gang activity. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with President of Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education, as opposed to daycare – President made comments which reflected negatively on daycare – allegedly unbalanced in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – programme framed the interview as a debate about the merits of “Daycare vs Homecare” but item itself had flavour of advertorial – taking into account likely audience, insufficient balance was provided – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMarathon Man – film – offensive language – warning ought to have been broadcast – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The movie Marathon Man was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on 22 May 2002. [2] Mrs M Charlton complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the movie contained offensive language, and that viewers ought to have been warned about its use. [3] Prime upheld the complaint and apologised to the complainant. It explained that appropriate staff had been reminded of Prime’s collective responsibility "with emphasis placed on not making assumptions on behalf of viewers and that warnings must be specific in nature". [4] Dissatisfied with the action taken in response to her complaint, Mrs Charlton referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....