Search Rapua

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....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard, regarding a 1News football match preview which included a montage of crowd shots. The complaint was about a crowd shot where a Palestinian flag was visible. The Authority has declined to determine the complaint on the grounds it concerned matters of personal preference and did not raise issues of potential harm which required the Authority’s intervention. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined) Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...

Summary A promo for the Billy T Awards was shown during This is Your Life which featured Michael Jones on 29 October 1997 beginning at 8. 30pm. The promo referred to masturbation. Mr Hay of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inappropriate to include the promo during the broadcast of a programme about a well known sportsman which would be watched by a large number of young people. He said he found it offensive and crude. TVNZ responded that it unhesitatingly agreed with Mr Hay that the promo was inappropriately placed. It explained that it was an error of judgement which had been acknowledged by the department responsible for making and scheduling of programme trailers. It apologised for causing offence. Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, My Hay referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

SummaryA comment made in an item on the programme Midday which was broadcast on TV One on 9 June 1998 referred to the relationship between mortgage rates and wholesale interest rates. Mr Rawson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that because New Zealand banks operated under a fractional reserve system, the comment was inaccurate and misleading. TVNZ advised Mr Rawson that it had undertaken research into his complaint which had verified the item’s statement that banks borrowed from the wholesale money market to lend to their customers, and that when wholesale interest rates rose, lending rates for mortgages generally rose too. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawson 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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a segment on Police Ten 7 breached the discrimination and denigration standard. A man called a woman who had called the police a ‘nosey motherf***ing white c***’. The Authority found in the context of the long-running series, and the particular programme, this comment did not reach the threshold for a finding that it encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 36/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B A MUDFORD of Matamata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Water Patrol, a reality TV series following the work of the Maritime Police, showed footage of the complainant, PG, in his boat in the Marlborough Sounds. The police vessel approached him from behind and asked him to stop his motor. The complainant was caught off-guard, apparently not wearing any pants. As he stood up to engage with the police, the fact he was wrapping a towel around his waist was highlighted and the police officer turned to the camera and commented, with a smile on his face, 'very unusual'....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item investigated the “purity movement” in the United States – after the item the presenter stated, “Well as you’ve heard earlier, the attrition rate is a big one. Lots of girls grow up and question the commitment they’ve made. It is believed that more than 80 percent break their purity vows” – statement allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – presenter’s statement distinguishable as commentary on what was said in the item – exempt from accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld by majority This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 3 April 2011, an Australian Channel 7 story, entitled “Thrill of the Chaste”, investigated the “purity movement” in the United States....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Police Ten 7 – “Bad boys” episode looked at “bad boys’ most memorable moments” – contained coarse language and nudity which were censored – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – content would not have been unexpected in a long-running reality series about the work of the police – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme preceded by clear warning advising parental guidance – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Cold Feet, a British comedy-drama series which followed the intertwining lives of three couples at different stages in their relationships, contained sex scenes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the sex scenes breached the children’s interests and good taste and decency standards. Cold Feet was not targeted at child viewers, it was classified Adults Only and broadcast during an appropriate timeband, and was preceded by a specific warning for sex scenes. The level of sexual content was not overly explicit and was justified by the episode’s narrative context. Overall the broadcaster adequately ensured child viewers could be protected from adult content, and the episode would not have offended or surprised the general viewing audience....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-003:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-003 PDF983. 25 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-080:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-080 PDF332. 98 KB...

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....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-099 Decision No: 1996-100 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and IN THE MATTER of complaints by THE NATIONAL COLLECTIVE OF RAPE CRISIS AND RELATED GROUPS OF AOTEAROA INC. and RUBY WOODWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...