Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Seven Sharp segment breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The complainant alleged co-host Jeremy Wells held a cucumber in a way that could be ‘likened to a man holding an erect penis’. The Authority found any innuendo in Wells’s behaviour was low-level and would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed regular Seven Sharp viewers, noting the segment’s light-hearted tone. The Authority noted adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes and such content did not require an audience advisory. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard regarding a match of Super Smash Cricket which featured the te reo Māori phrase ‘kore puta’ (following the English phrase ‘not out’) onscreen when a review was called for whether the player batting was out or not out. The complainant considered the word ‘puta’ was highly offensive due to its different meaning in other languages such as Spanish and Portuguese. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding that in the context of a broadcast of a New Zealand domestic cricket match, and the previous phrase onscreen ‘decision pending’ also translated in te reo, it was clear the word ‘puta’ was being used as a te reo translation for the word ‘out’. In this context, the Authority did not need to consider what the word may mean in other languages....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 63/94 Dated the 15th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MAURICE NEW of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging it was unbalanced to include coverage of some New Year Honours award recipients and not others. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it is not capable of being determined by this complaints procedure and had little connection to the standard raised. The Authority considered that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance...

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

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

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – discussed concerns that the product was defective and putting homes at risk – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – seen overall, item seriously criticised TimberSaver product – no scientific evidence provided to refute criticisms – no evidence provided of quality and suitability of product – unbalanced – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – scientist on programme not independent – conflict of interest – contrary to guideline 5e – upheld – other aspects of accuracy complaint not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – seen overall, item unfair to Osmose – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,000 Payment of costs to the Crown $2,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-174 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MONIQUE BARDEN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-043 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY DEPUTY MAYOR of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintHolmes – item on Erotica exhibition – offensive behaviour Findings: Standard G6 – no uphold Standard G7 – not applicable Standard G11 – not applicable Standard G12 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Holmes item broadcast on TV One on 4 August 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm dealt with a trade fair held in Auckland entitled Erotica 2000. According to the organisers, the fair was intended to change people’s perception of erotica being sleazy and to present it as mainstream. Dennis Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast promoted the sex industry as a viable lifestyle and that TVNZ was irresponsible in screening such material. In his view, all aspects of the sex industry degraded women. In its response, TVNZ noted that the broadcast had taken a "light-hearted look" at the trade fair....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ugly Betty promo – classified G – contained sexual themes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – content of promo required a higher classification of PGR – promo should not have screened during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – content of promo was more suitable for a mature audience – should not have been broadcast during a G programme children were likely to be watching – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the comedy programme Ugly Betty was broadcast on TV2 at 7....

SummaryA BBC documentary entitled Ladies Night screened during Under Investigation on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 16 June 1998. The documentary concerned a male strip revue in the Welsh city of Swansea. Ms Wendy Atkinson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the documentary breached standards of good taste, and was entirely unsuitable for children and teenagers. TVNZ responded that the documentary was classified AO, had screened in an AO timeband, and that the introduction would have alerted viewers to the adult nature of the programme thus giving them the opportunity to decide not to watch. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Atkinson referred the 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. DecisionThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix)....

SummaryThe alarm shown by two young boys in a bath when dirty water suddenly bubbled up through the plug hole was featured in an item on The Great Kiwi Video Show shown on TV2 at 6. 30pm on 21 March 1999. When one of the boys stood up, a colourful programme logo was superimposed over his genital area. Mr Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the practice of masking innocent nudity. Such masking, he continued, suggested that genitalia were unacceptable and dirty. Further, he wrote, research indicated that men who were not socially comfortable with their bodies could lack self-esteem, and that could lead to anti-social behaviour. He listed a number of broadcasting standards which he considered the broadcast had contravened....

Summary A representative of the Airline Pilots’ Association was interviewed on Holmes, broadcast at 7. 00pm on TV One on 2 September 1999, in connection with a strike by Ansett pilots. Mr Geddes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was biased, unbalanced and actively denigrated pilots involved in the dispute. He said he was appalled at the rudeness of the interviewer and his unprofessional, discourteous behaviour. TVNZ conceded that the interview could be described as "robust" but did not agree that it was rude or biased. The pilots’ representative was given full opportunity to respond on their behalf, it argued. It explained that, as management had declined to appear, balance was achieved by the presenter adopting a "devil’s advocate" position in order to prevent the item from becoming a chronicle of viewpoints from the Pilots’ Association....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Sunday – previewed item on disputed territory of East Jerusalem – presenter stated, “Sunday travels to Israel to bring you Jew against Arab from a truly unique perspective” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was a fair summary of the situation featured in the programme – both sides were represented in the promo – did not reach threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals not groups – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – promo did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast between 1....