Search Rapua

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Wolf Creek – horror film contained drugging, sexual violence, torture and murder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 10 (violence) – extremely disturbing violence – inadequate classification and warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – outside children’s normally accepted viewing times – 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] Wolf Creek, an Australian horror film, was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Tuesday 11 March 2007. In the film, two women, Lizzy and Kristy, and their friend, Ben, travelled together to visit the meteorite crater at Wolf Creek National Park. When they returned from the crater, they discovered their car would not go....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on the experience and fears of one woman dealing with her mentally-ill ex-husband – woman described her ex-husband as dangerous – dealt with failures of the mental health system – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – woman gave her opinions about her husband, did not make statements of fact about people with bipolar disorder in general – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, people with bipolar disorder or mental illness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about improving the safety of the site of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster – reported thousands had died during and after the event – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – although a human and environmental catastrophe, UN and WHO sources suggest deaths of less than 100 – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Fresh concerns about improving the safety of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster site in the Ukraine were covered in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 13 May 2005. It was reported that “thousands of people died during and after the disaster”. Complaint [2] Allan Dewar complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eye to Eye – host asked his guests whether the Labour or Māori Party candidate would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election – did not mention a third candidate for the electorate – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Eye to Eye, broadcast on TV One at 9. 30am on 5 February 2005, the host asked his two female guests whether Dover Samuels (Labour Party) or Hone Harawira (Māori Party) would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-137 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JAMES HIPPOLITE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-093 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR J J SMALL of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintGoing Straight – documentary about curing homosexuals through Christian programme – inaccurate – unbalanced – discrimination against homosexuals Findings(1) Standard G6 – majority – documentary focussed on perspectives of those featured – no uphold (2) Standard G13 – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Going Straight was broadcast on Prime Television on 16 June 2000 at 8. 35pm. The programme was a documentary about gay men who were attempting to change their sexual orientation through a Christian programme run at Caleb House in Kansas. The New Zealand Aids Foundation, through its research director, Tony Hughes, complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced. In its view, an exclusively religious perspective on homosexuality had been presented....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Sunday documenting a woman’s final months before her assisted death. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the balance standard as it included no discussion of palliative care or alternative viewpoints regarding assisted dying. The children’s interests standard was also impliedly raised in the complaint. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply as the item did not constitute a discussion of the issue of assisted dying. The children’s interests standard was not breached as the context of the programme and signalling of content meant it was suitable to be broadcast in its timeslot. Not Upheld: Balance, Children’s interests...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homegrown – programme investigating history of beer in New Zealand – words "bastards", "bloody", "crap", "boobs or balls" and "shitloads" used – other words censored – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – language was humorous rather than abusive – worst language was censored – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Homegrown, a locally produced series which investigated various aspects of New Zealand culture and particularly produce, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 1 November 2008. This episode looked at the history of beer brewing in New Zealand. [2] During the programme, the words "bastards", "bloody", "crap", "boobs or balls" and "shitloads" were used, predominantly by one of the interviewees. Some other words were bleeped out....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-110 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN MOIR of Dunedin TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – headline summary on the respective National Party and Labour Party plans to provide financial assistance to New Zealanders who lost their jobs as a result of the economic crisis – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement that Labour’s policy applied to anybody who lost their job was inaccurate – headline summary would have misled viewers – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of accuracy No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a round-up of the day’s top stories on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – contained conversations of a sexual nature and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This 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 10pm on 25 January 2008. The episode included conversations of a sexual nature, which came about by the host asking questions of the four contestants and then commenting on their answers. [2] An example of one such exchange was as follows: Host: (asking one of the three female contestants) Who out of Sharon and Sue has had sex with their partner’s big toe?...

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad featured footage taken at a named international airport in New Zealand, during which a Ministry for Primary Industries detector dog found an apple in a couple’s bag. PN, a Quarantine Officer, was shown questioning the couple about the apple and issuing them with a fine. The faces of PN and the couple, and PN’s identity tag, were blurred and PN was not named. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment breached PN’s privacy. While it found that, despite the blurring, PN was identifiable in the broadcast, it did not consider that any private information was disclosed during the segment....

An episode of Seven Sharp included an item about a tornado and thunderstorm that occurred in New Zealand and an eye witness account from a resident. Considering the contextual factors and the nature of the programme, the Authority did not uphold a complaint that the language used breached the good taste and decency standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...