Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-058 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANN GILLANDERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-010 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by H R CORRIN of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 131/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by VALERIE O'BRIEN of Invercargill Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved a man with extensive burn injuries seeking revenge on his victims by burning them alive – showed victims being covered in petrol and set on fire – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and violence FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – high degree of explicit violence and disturbing themes constituted strong adult material that warranted an AO 9. 30pm classification and later time of broadcast – programme incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – episode contained explicit violence – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – level of violence in 8. 30pm broadcast was unacceptable in context, despite AO classification – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – comment in both headlines and item – kick up the arse – political meeting – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – no tape of headlines – decline to determine; comment in item acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The contest for the presidency of the National Party was dealt with in an item on One News broadcast at 6. 00pm on 6 May 2001. The item reported on the voting at a regional conference, with one delegate saying that "the party needs a good kick up the arse". The remark was also included in the opening headlines for One News. Don Campbell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the opening headline and the item containing that expression failed to meet standards of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interview with a man about the fate of his wife who died in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake – showed sequence of photographs as reporter stated, “As these police photos show, there were concrete cutters used on the western side of the building, but what about on the side [the woman] and four others were trapped? ” – photographs allegedly inaccurate and misleading FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – photographs used to illustrate assertions, based on eyewitness evidence, that concrete cutters were available but not used – use of photographs not material in the context of the item – photographs would not have misled viewers in any significant respect – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Vote 2014 which covered the results of the 2014 general election, used the terms 'jeez', 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus' as exclamations. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of these terms was offensive and inappropriate. The Authority has consistently recognised that the colloquial use of variations of 'Jesus' as an exclamation to express irritation, dismay or surprise is increasingly common and widely accepted. The use of the words in this context, during live coverage of an important political event, did not threaten standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During Vote 2014, comprising five hours of live coverage of the results of the 2014 general election, one of the hosts used the terms 'jeez' and 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus'....

ComplaintOne World of Sport: Rugby Sevens – live broadcast during half-time break – "fuck"– offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – barely audible – emotionally charged sports broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary One World of Sport: Rugby Sevens was broadcast live on TV One from 7. 00pm until 9. 36pm on 5 February 2000. Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that offensive language "containing the ‘f’ word" was broadcast in the half-time break of the final match, during filming of the New Zealand team’s half time huddle. Mr Schwabe said that it was irresponsible to broadcast from a live microphone in these and similar circumstances. TVNZ responded that, while there appeared to be strong language used, it was indistinct....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-015:Dunckley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-015 PDF93. 26 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. 1993-173:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-173 PDF259. 91 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-071:Jackson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-071 PDF290. 38 KB...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that reality dating show Naked Attraction, broadcast after 10pm on TVNZ 2, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, potential love interests are introduced by gradually revealing their naked bodies, from the feet up (un-pixelated). With reference to previous decisions on earlier episodes of the programme, the Authority found that while the programme may not have been to everybody’s taste, ample information was available to enable viewers to make a different viewing choice. In the context there was no harm caused which justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a reporter’s comment during a segment on 1 News concerning the death of a child from a throat infection breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The Authority acknowledged the relevant phrase represented a poor choice of words. However, in the context, the Authority accepted that it was inadvertent and did not merit regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that an episode of Country Calendar depicted cruelty towards animals. The episode focused on the work of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Foundation’s conservation work. It included footage of Wapiti deer being hunted and shot from a helicopter, collected, and processed at an abattoir. The Authority has consistently found that hunting is a reality of life in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the depiction of hunting footage is generally acceptable provided it does not depict undue cruelty. The Authority did not consider this broadcast included any such footage justifying a departure from these findings. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....