Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the use of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation in an episode of Shortland Street. The complaint was the use of ‘Jesus’ in this way disrespected New Zealanders who use that name only in prayer. The Authority acknowledged the complainant, and others in the community, find the language used offensive. However, as it has previously determined, the use of variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations did not threaten community standards of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency  ...

The Authority has not upheld a good taste and decency complaint that the treatment of a clip showing a ‘devastating’ explosion in Lebanon was inappropriate in a segment rounding up ‘all the crazy, messed-up oddities’ of the week. The context and the importance of freedom of expression meant there was no harm justifying regulatory intervention in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency; Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No:136/94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (Rt Hon HELEN CLARK) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-046 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P G CURRAN of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintMusic Video – "Beautiful Day" – offensive behaviour – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – kissing shown – not offensive – no uphold Standard G12 – content acceptable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A music video was broadcast on TV One at about 8. 00am on Sunday 8 October 2000 between a religious programme and a children’s programme. The song "Beautiful Day" was sung by U2. Barry Marshall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the video contained "licentious behaviour" which he considered offensive. In his view, it was unsuitable for broadcast at any time, but particularly so when placed between two "quality programmes". TVNZ responded that the song’s lyrics were not unsuitable for child viewers and that the visuals of a couple kissing did not exceed community norms of decency and good taste....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on the death of a Georgian luger at the Winter Olympics – included footage of the crash that killed the athlete and a still shot of him being attended to by paramedics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcaster handled the crash with adequate care and sensitivity – still shot of paramedic giving CPR to the bloodied athlete on the borderline of acceptability – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Saturday 13 February 2010, reported on the death of a Georgian luger during a practice run at the Winter Olympic Games in Canada....

Summary The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 12 April 1999. The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects. TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-001 Dated the 29th day of January 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IAN McLEAN of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 8/94 Dated the 21st day of February 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 74/94 Dated the 1st day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DENNIS WALKER of Havelock North Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-174 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIVE HAYWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed ‘growing calls’ for New Zealand’s right to silence laws to be urgently changed. The complaint was the item failed to present the views of the many authorities who support the status quo, or include relevant historical context, and used unduly emotive language to advance an unbalanced narrative. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, within the period of current interest, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of views and information on the right to silence in cases of child abuse. It also found the broadcast approached this issue from a particular perspective and did not purport to be a balanced examination....

The Authority considered a complaint about a promo for Taskmaster which was aired during the programme Breakfast (unclassified) at 7. 30am, and a promo for My Life is Murder which was aired during the programme The Chase (rated G) at 5. 35pm. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these promos, which contained brief sexual references, breached the children’s interests standard. It found the references were mild and inexplicit, were not likely to alarm or distress children, and met the requirements for a G classification. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a 1News report on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged the broadcast’s framing of the Treaty principles as partnership, participation, and protection (the Three Ps) was ‘incomplete and confused’, and describing the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’ erroneously suggested the Bill was rewriting the Treaty principles. The broadcast stated, ‘there are no principles that have been expressly defined or set out in law’ and recited the Three Ps as the ‘current main three principles’. In the context of the segment, the reporter’s comments were unlikely to mislead viewers, and any potential harm caused was not at a level justifying intervention. Additionally, it was not misleading, in the context, to refer to the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 31/94 Dated the 26th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 19/95 Decision No: 20/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KINGS COLLEGE of Auckland and its headmaster JOHN TAYLOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 139/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID TROOP of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....