Search Rapua

SummaryA commercial break at about 10. 25pm, during the commentators’ summary of the league match broadcast on 2 Sports Action: Lion Red League, amounted to 4 minutes 15 seconds in total. It began and finished with a 5 second sponsorship credit and included another sponsorship credit and a 30 second liquor advertisement. Liquor promotions comprised 45 seconds of the break. GALA’s Complaints Secretary, Cliff Turner, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that four liquor promotions in one commercial break constituted saturation in contravention of the standards. Pointing out that the liquor promotions were not sequential and amounted in total to only 45 seconds of a break which lasted 4 minutes and 15 seconds, TVNZ did not accept that the promotions amounted to saturation. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Turner on GALA’s behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-084 Dated the 10th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANK HARRIS of Mount Maunganui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints regarding an episode of Shortland Street were not upheld. In the episode a new character appointed CEO of the Shortland Street hospital commented, ‘Puffed up, privileged Pakeha men drunk on control, terrified of change… we are the future, Esther, not them,’ referring to the hospital’s management. Complaints were made that this statement was sexist, racist and offensive to white men. The Authority reviewed the programme and relevant contextual factors, including established expectations of Shortland Street as a long-running, fictional soap opera/drama, and concluded the character’s statement did not breach broadcasting standards. It found upholding the complaints in this context would unreasonably limit the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness The broadcast[1] A Shortland Street episode featured a new CEO, Te Rongopai, starting at Shortland Street hospital....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – resident dog trainer worked to retrain the dogs to be better behaved – dog training methods allegedly outdated and harmful – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes did not contain any material inaccuracies – commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as such – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes appropriately classified PGR – episodes contained clear disclaimer – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking read out a letter from a disgruntled viewer about comments he had made during an earlier episode about music group One Direction. The letter contained numerous expletives which were 'beeped' out during the broadcast. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the 'disgusting' language was contrary to good taste and decency and children's interests. Beeping is a commonly employed broadcasting technique to mask potentially offensive language. While most viewers would have discerned what the words were, in the context of an unclassified current affairs programme targeted at adults, which is known for being humorous and at times provocative, the segment did not threaten standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A campaign clip for the National Party (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) was broadcast on TVNZ 1 on 28 August 2017. The clip featured a group dressed in blue running through New Zealand landscapes, who passed another group of four wearing red, green and black shirts with their legs tied together and struggling. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the election programme breached the Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice and was misleading on the grounds it implied that National was only a single party in Government. The election programme did not imitate any existing programme, format or identifiable personality as envisaged by the misleading programmes standard in the Election Programmes Code....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of the crime thriller series Paula, one of the characters used the phrase ‘Jesus fucking Christ’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of this phrase in the context of the programme breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that many people may find this phrase offensive. However, taking into account the nature of the programme, the pre-broadcast warning for frequent use of coarse language, the Adults Only classification, the time of broadcast and audience expectations of the programme, the Authority did not consider the use of the phrase threatened community norms of taste and decency, or justified restricting the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host and others were shown not wearing lifejackets while on a fishing boat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that it was irresponsible to broadcast footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets. Although the Authority understood why certain parts of the footage shown in the programme were a cause of concern for the complainant regarding water safety, these issues were unable to be addressed under the responsible programming standard. Not Upheld: Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host visited the Far North of New Zealand and went fishing at his childhood fishing spot with family and close friends. While on the fishing boat, the men were shown not wearing lifejackets. [2] Graeme Carlaw complained that broadcasting footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets promoted irresponsible behaviour....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-034:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-034 PDF 335. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-176:R and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-176 PDF497. 89 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-086:Paton-Simpson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-086 PDF458. 1 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

SummaryThe Millennium Moment broadcast on TV One on 28 December 1999 during One News beginning at 6. 00pm included an item on nudist clubs. It reported that there were 24 nudist clubs in New Zealand with about two thousand members. Members of one such club were shown relaxing or playing sport. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item would have encouraged children and young people to consider nudism in public as normal when in fact only a small percentage of people were members of nudist clubs. He contended that the content was offensive and unsuitable for broadcast when children were watching television. TVNZ responded that the brief item was one of a series designed to record notable anniversaries and to reflect the diversity of life in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters discussed Civil Defence emergency survival kits – presenter commented on what people should have in their kits, Mormons being prepared for disasters as part of their faith, and whether people should just have a gun and bullets and use them to take other people’s kits – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were inane banter that was not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 7 September 2010, the presenters, Paul Henry, Pippa Wetzell and Peter Williams, discussed Civil Defence emergency kits....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....