Search Rapua

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

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....

ComplaintOne News – item reported the issue of a safety advisory notice for an oil heater sold through the Warehouse – following item reported death of two girls in fire thought to have been caused by gas heater – complaint that items unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – each item balanced – not upheld Standard 5 – each item accurate – not upheld Standard 6 – juxtaposition of items created misleading impression – unfair – upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The issue of a safety advisory notice about the Brio Five Fin oil heater, sold through The Warehouse stores, was reported in an item broadcast on One News on 30 August 2003 beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Tonight – item reported on deaths of two people involved in a police pursuit – stated that 10 people in 2010 had died “as a result of patrol car pursuits” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state that police were responsible for the deaths – viewers would have understood the meaning of the reporter’s statement – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was straightforward news report – no judgement was made about the actions of the police involved in the pursuits – not unfair to the police – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promos for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during Emmerdale – contained comments, “one guy who’s in serious need of a root” and, “when your husband can’t keep his dick in his pants” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Emmerdale aimed at adult audience – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting the promo during Emmerdale – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] Two promos for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, were broadcast on 1 and 5 July 2011 on TV One between 12. 30pm and 1. 30pm, during Emmerdale which was rated PGR....

ComplaintStrassman – ventriloquist – offensive language – fuck – wank – blasphemyFindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – context relevant – no uphold Cross ReferenceDecision No: 2000-137 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ventriloquist in Strassman, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 18 July 2000 used the word "fuck" and its derivatives when in conversation with his puppet characters. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In particular he said he was offended by the use of the word "fuck", which he said was a macho term which unashamedly denigrated women and instilled an "antisocial and dangerous attitude towards women". As he had received no response from TVNZ, he referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – programme asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed five flag options – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate on material points of fact or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Friday 5 February 2010, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag. The programme ran a poll to determine viewers’ preferences for a proposed flag and provided them with five different options to choose from....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item reference to a New Conservative Party policy of ‘repealing gay marriage’ was inaccurate. The Authority found the statement was not inaccurate or misleading, in light of the party’s advertised marriage policy. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the balance standard regarding an episode of Breakfast that referred to New Zealand as Aotearoa. The complainant considered the name Aotearoa should not be used to replace the country’s official name. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine: Balance (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances)...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint concerning a remark on 1 News about Pasifika people having a sense of comfort when dealing with clinicians and other staff who look like them. The complainant alleged this was racist. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it concerned an interpretation of the remark that no reasonable viewer would reach. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a brief 1 News report on a leaked draft decision from the United States Supreme Court, which had the potential to overturn the landmark decision of Roe v Wade concerning abortion rights. The complaint alleged the broadcast was unbalanced as it did not include footage of pro-life activists or arguments for the ‘rights of the child’. The Authority found that the broadcast was a straightforward report focused on the development of the reported leak. It did not discuss views for or against abortion access, therefore the balance standard did not apply. In any event, the Authority noted the broadcaster had provided balance over time in other 1 News coverage. Not Upheld: Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out during an anti-terror raid in Brussels. During the item, the Europe Correspondent stated, ‘We’ve now heard that one suspect has been neutralised’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the term ‘neutralised’ was not accurate, appropriate or neutral language. The Authority found the choice of language was not a material point of fact in the item, which focused on an anti-terror raid linked to the Paris terror attacks. Further, the term ‘neutralised’ is at times used in the context of reporting on police or counter-terrorism action. The use of this term was not biased against, and did not imply fault on the part of, the Belgian Police. Not upheld: Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A news item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out that occurred during an anti terror raid in Brussels....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Hard Stuff with Nigel Latta focused on issues around retirement. At the beginning of the episode, Nigel Latta was transformed into an elderly man using special effects make-up. He reacted to his transformation with the exclamation, ‘Oh my God! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language was offensive and that presenters of current affairs or documentary programmes should be required to use a higher standard of language. The Authority followed its findings in previous decisions that expressions such as ‘Oh my God’ are often used as exclamations and are not intended to be offensive. It was satisfied that in the context it was used by the presenter, the expression would not generally be considered to threaten current norms of good taste and decency....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-007:Forbes (on behalf of the Children's Television Foundation) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-007 PDF463. 42 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-022:Cole and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-022 PDF274. 08 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-088:Health Action and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-088 PDF349. 47 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-022:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-022 PDF421. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-072:One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072 PDF477. 75 KB...