Search Rapua

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad showed dog handlers with the Department of Corrections searching visitors to a prison. The episode showed two occasions of the complainant (SW) being searched; firstly, her bag was searched when she was driving onto prison premises, and secondly, a sniffer dog identified that she was carrying contraband (tobacco) inside the prison and she was shown surrendering this to Corrections staff. In both instances her face was blurred. The Authority upheld SW’s complaint that broadcasting the footage breached her privacy. She was identifiable despite her face being blurred (by clothing, body type, voice, etc), and the disclosure of private facts about her, including prescription drugs she was taking, among other things, was highly offensive....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the upcoming flag referendum and featured an interview with an Australian advocate for changing the flag. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that presenter Mike Hosking ‘encouraged the New Zealand public to vote a certain way by reiterating his own prejudices and then using an Australian broadcaster to support his own views’. While Mr Hosking made his view in support of changing the flag known, the alternative view was adequately presented during the item. Given the widespread coverage of the flag referendum, viewers could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant perspectives on the issue, and would not have been deceived or disadvantaged as a result of this item. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp discussed the upcoming flag referendum....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News breached the complainant and her grandchild’s privacy. The item, which reported on the implications of GP shortages in Northland, included footage of the complainant and her grandchild (who was in a moonboot with crutches) leaving a medical centre, and of them in the waiting room. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of health information and encouraged broadcasters to obtain the consent of persons filmed in a medical centre (particularly where children are involved). However, the Authority found there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular facts disclosed (being attendance at a medical centre) noting the complainant was initially depicted outside the centre, from a public footpath, where there was no expectation of privacy. No additional information was disclosed by the subsequent footage from within the waiting room. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 “Breaking News” caption – “breaking news ticker” broadcast during advertisement break stated, “Breaking News. . . Container ship breaks apart. . . Tugs racing to the scene. . . More on One News at 4. 30, 6pm and at tvnz. co. nz” – information inaccurate – question whether the breaking news ticker was a “programme” for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and therefore whether the Authority has jurisdiction to accept the complaint    Findings “Breaking news ticker” consisted predominantly of alphanumeric text and therefore excluded from the definition of “programme” – Authority does not have jurisdiction to accept the complaint This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on verdict in Ewen McDonald murder trial – reporter commented, “You could well be thinking, if he’s not guilty, why hasn’t he walked out these doors behind me and spoken to media?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Seven Sharp showed a Pit Bull owner describing the dogs as the 'most sookiest, goofiest, loyal, loving teddy bears'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that it was misleading to promote Pit Bulls as 'good family dogs'. The comments were clearly distinguishable as opinion, so the accuracy standard did not apply. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] A promo for Seven Sharp included a story on Pit Bull adoption. A Pit Bull owner was shown describing the dogs as the 'most sookiest, goofiest, loyal, loving teddy bears'. [2] Louise Chaney complained that it was misleading to promote Pit Bulls as 'good family dogs' as they can be dangerous and have been known to attack children. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the accuracy standard, as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-095:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-095 PDF676. 46 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-160:Te Okoro Joseph Runga and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-160 PDF753. 81 KB...

ComplaintThe Last Word – a discussion about decriminalisation of prostitution – presenter described promoter of change as a "Pomgolian" – refused to allow him to describe changes elsewhere – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair – offensive FindingsStandard 1 – context – no uphold Standard 4 – presenter put views strongly as well as acting as facilitator – range of views advanced – no uphold Standard 5 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Standard 6 – on balance – interruption not unfair given experiences of interviewee This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The sponsor of the Prostitution Reform Bill, Tim Barnett MP, and women’s advocate, Sandra Coney, were interviewed on The Last Word, which was broadcast on TV One at 10. 40pm on 24 June 2003. The presenter, Pam Corkery, stated that she opposed the Bill....

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

ComplaintBehind the Scenes – Ali G in da house – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The programme Behind the Scenes – Ali G in da house was broadcast on TV 2 at 10. 45pm on 16 July 2002. [2] Angela Niumata complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme included a sequence where the main character performed a suggestive and offensive act upon another character. [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said that in the context of adult comedy, the scene complained about did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Niumata referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ultimate force – British drama about elite SAS unit – showed mock interrogation of woman prisoner – woman at different times shown naked, hooded, and being hit – allegedly in breach of violence standardFindings Standard 10 (violence) – low-level violence – violence in context, not gratuitous – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Ultimate force, a British drama centred around the elite British SAS Red Troop unit, was broadcast on TV One at 8:30pm on 18 January 2005. A central storyline of the episode concerned a soldier’s efforts to become the first female member of the SAS. The soldier was shown undergoing mock interrogation as part of her training and assessment; at different times she was shown being verbally abused, naked, and being hit....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about the employment of disabled person – employer told of physical disability only – employee had mental health disability as well – disruption of staff – employer believed that she should have been told of mental health disability – allegedly discriminated against mentally disabledFindings Standard 6 and Guideline 6g (discrimination) – item focused on specific employee and presenter’s comment on specific employer – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The disruption caused by an employee with a mental health disability was recounted by a Nelson hairdresser in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 June 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rude Tube – series featured viral video clips from the internet – “Animal Madness” episode included a clip of a man taking “an unscheduled toilet break” in a paddock, and being chased by a donkey apparently attempting to mate with him – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – most viewers would not have been offended – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not amount to “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989MasterChef New Zealand – contestants used the words “crapping” and “pissed off” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was low-level and would not have offended most viewers in the context of a PGR programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the final episode of MasterChef New Zealand, references to “crapping myself” and “crapping yourself” were made by one of the contestants and one of the judges, and another contestant said she was “pissed off with [herself]” for forgetting important ingredients. The episode was broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 June 2012. [2] Janet Lockyer made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the language was offensive and unacceptable....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...