Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out an email from the complainant – pronounced complainant’s last name incorrectly – host made comments responding to the complainant’s email – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable – people who provide feedback cannot expect anonymity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a Breakfast segment called “On This Day”, broadcast on TV One at 6. 45am on 24 June 2009, the host referred to the “Jakarta incident” saying: On this day in 1982, a British Airways Boeing 747 en route from London to Auckland lost power in all four engines when it flew into volcanic ash off Indonesia. The pilots managed incredibly to glide the plane through the cloud of ash before restarting the engines and landing safely....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes promo broadcast during One News – interview with crime novelist – said “I’m going to tell you about how to commit the perfect murder” – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – promo consistent with law and order – no glamorisation of crime – crime novelist promoting her work – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the Holmes show aired on TV One at 6. 20pm on 27 October 2004. The presenter announced that he would be interviewing Tara Moss, a former model and “Australia’s number one crime writer”. The author was then shown to say: Join me tonight…on the Holmes show, and I’m going to tell you about how to commit the perfect murder....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item parodied “naked” news programmes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sequence unnecessarily lengthy – gratuitously explicit – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Eating Media Lunch is a series that lampoons aspects of the media both in New Zealand and overseas. The use of semi-naked news presenters in some countries was featured in the item broadcast on TV2 starting at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 15 November 2005. [2] The item presented the “Fuck News” which was said to originate in France. The item showed two partly dressed presenters who seemed to be having sexual intercourse while reading the news....

Complaint Moving On – offensive language – "pissing out" – incorrect classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – context – no uphold Standard 7 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Moving On was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 25 April 2002. The programme followed the fortunes of people moving house. [2] Gordon Hayes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a sequence during which a man featured on the programme used the phrase "pissing out" to describe steam coming from his car’s engine. Mr Hayes said that the phrase was "crude language which should not be allowed in a G programme". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintHolmes – panel discussion on Australian Rugby League’s punishment of John Hopoate who had assaulted other players on the field – humorous approach – breach of good taste and decency – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – context – topical and newsworthy issue – humour balanced by serious debate – no uphold Standard G12 – current affairs programme – child viewers unlikely to have been watching alone – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7pm on 29 March 2001, focussed on Australian Rugby League’s decision to suspend John Hopoate for twelve weeks. Mr Hopoate had been found guilty of conduct contrary to the true spirit of rugby league for inserting his finger into the backsides of three players during a rugby league match....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-071 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LAWRIE MALATIOS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on saving fuel costs – contained a number statements about hybrid cars, including the following comment which referred to the Toyota Prius, “The bottom line is that the British Consumer’s Institute just did a comparison between a diesel car and a hybrid car and found that the diesel car was in fact more efficient....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go Ad Awards – two teams of advertisers were asked to “sell us Quade Cooper for New Zealand’s next Prime Minister” during live advertising awards – included comments such as, “everyone hates Quade Cooper” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – piece was intended to be light-hearted and humorous, rather than malicious or abusive – presented in the spirit of good-natured ribbing and team rivalry – Mr Cooper not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community, not individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary The referendum proposition to decrease the number of MPs from 120 to 99 was the subject of debate on Crossfire broadcast on TV One on 7 October 1999 beginning at 9. 30pm. The matter was discussed by Act’s leader Richard Prebble MP in support of the proposal, and Labour MP Steve Maharey, who opposed it. Keith Flint complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the referendum had been initiated by a private citizen, the absence of a representative of the public to debate the matter resulted in the programme lacking balance and objectivity. In its response, TVNZ emphasised that the question being debated was whether a reduction in the number of MPs would result in better government and, in that context, it was entirely appropriate that it should be debated by one MP who supported the cut in numbers, and one who did not....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Carrie Diaries – teen drama series contained sexual references and innuendo – allegedly in breach of the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – episode’s depiction of sexual content was inexplicit and discreet – would not have offended or distressed most viewers, including supervised children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests in screening the episode during children’s viewing times, given its PGR classification and specific pre-broadcast warning – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of The Carrie Diaries, an American teen drama series loosely based on the book and TV series Sex and the City, contained sexual references and innuendo....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-162:Baker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-162 PDF230. 63 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that an episode of Jeremy Kyle, a talk show dealing with relationship breakdowns between guests, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant’s objections related to the nature of the series in general, rather than specific content in this episode. While elements could have caused discomfort or distress for viewers, the episode was consistent with audience expectations of the talk show genre, was rated PGR and was broadcast at a time when AO programmes are permitted, during the school term, so children were unlikely to be watching....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-020:Nga Kaiwhakapumau I Te Reo (Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-020 PDF541. 34 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-007:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-007 PDF322. 28 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-071:Dunlop and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-071 PDF264. 43 KB...

A 1 News presenter used the term ‘gypsy day’ when reporting on the annual relocation of sharemilkers. The Authority upheld a complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority highlighted the importance of responding to societal change: terms that may have been acceptable in the past, may not necessarily be acceptable in the future. While not used to express malice or hatred, the phrase is derogatory and evokes prejudicial biases towards the Roma community. When used in this context, it is capable of embedding existing negative stereotypes. Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration No order...