Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 157/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C A MAUDE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-045 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-087 Dated the 6th day of August 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL SHAND of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – stated that animal welfare group had gone “undercover” on a farm to investigate mistreated pigs and that it had gained access through an unlocked door – showed footage obtained by the group of sick and injured animals – allegedly in breach of law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not show the group breaking into the farm – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law by screening the footage – public interest in showing mistreatment of animals – 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 23 July, reported on new footage of pigs at a Levin farm that had been the subject of a previous TVNZ broadcast on animal welfare....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male sex scene – sodomy – breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 23 July 2002 at 9. 35pm on TV One included a scene of two males having sex. [2] N N Rodley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was too graphic, and that he had "never seen two males copulating on TV. " [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the scene did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Rodley referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – investigated high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand – interviewed two girls who unexpectedly fell pregnant, one of whom chose to have an abortion – presenter conducted studio interview with an “expert in youth sexual health” – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed why teenage pregnancy rate was so high in New Zealand, not the merits of abortion – viewers would have been aware of alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 28 October 2010, considered high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand. The presenter stated in the introduction, “The issue is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News Now – item contained footage of teenage girl beating another and two girls fighting – item was not preceded by a warning – broadcaster upheld the complaint under responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming), Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Standard 10 (violence) – item carried a high level of public interest and would have been acceptable for broadcast if preceded by a warning – TVNZ correct to uphold the complaint but action taken was sufficient in the circumstances – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During TVNZ News Now, broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 8am on Sunday 27 March 2011, the news reader introduced a story, saying: There’s serious concern from schools about the rise in physical violence among teenage girls....

ComplaintPromo for Always Greener – bare buttocks masked by a "smiley face" – indecent – harmful to children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – masking device not offensive – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – not harmful to child viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A promo for Always Greener was broadcast on TV One at various times on 2 February 2003. A "smiley face" was used to cover the bare buttocks of a male character. [2] John Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the human form in this manner was offensive and harmful to children. [3] In response, TVNZ said the "smiley face" was attached so that the promo could be shown at any time. It declined to uphold the complaint that the masking breached broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 TVNZ News – stated that “your odds” of being hit by a piece of satellite were 1 in 3,200 – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was inaccurate in stating that “your odds of being hit by a piece of this satellite. . . [were] 1 in 3,200” because they were the odds of anyone getting hit – misleading to then compare those odds and imply it was more likely than being in a car accident – however broadcaster could have expected to rely on reputable news agency and figures supplied by NASA – effect of inaccuracy not so serious as to outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Father Ted – alleged crude humour – alleged disgraceful portrayal of Christian leadersFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g – Father Ted does not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Roman Catholic priests – legitimate work of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Father Ted is a long running British comedy series. A repeat of episodes from the second series screened on TV One on Saturday evenings in November 2003 at 7. 30pm. Television New Zealand Ltd described Father Ted as a series which “makes fun of human foibles through the adventures of a small group of Roman Catholic priests assigned to a remote, fictional island off the coast of Ireland. ” The complainant watched the episodes broadcast on 22 and 29 November....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with father of escaped prisoner – used words “arsehole” and “bugger” – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A father whose son had escaped from prison was interviewed in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 22 April 2004. The father, whose home had been burgled by his son on at least three occasions, appealed to his son to give himself up. During the interview, the father used the word “arsehole” and also used the word “bugger” at least three times. Complaint [2] Gary Welch and Don Campbell each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word “arsehole” was unacceptable and in breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Hunter Adventures featuring two groups of duck shooters in New Zealand. The episode included footage of people, including young people, using firearms, shooting ducks, celebrating successful shots, holding and plucking dead ducks, and showcasing hunting gear and equipment. Taking into account the relevant contextual factors including the programme’s classification, target audience and audience expectations, the broadcast did not breach the good taste and decency, children’s interests or violence standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint images included in a 1 News item regarding the Children’s Commissioner’s report on child poverty breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority did not consider ‘people in poverty’ to be a recognised section of the community for the purposes of the standard. In any event, the Authority did not consider the content of the broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

As part of a news item on ‘main developments overnight’ in the war between Russia and Ukraine, a clip was shown where the presenter stated ‘This is footage we’re seeing from Ukraine, a Russian tank in the capital of Kyiv swerving to drive over the top of a car with someone inside. ’ The complainant alleged this was inaccurate, submitting it was actually a Ukrainian anti-aircraft vehicle which lost control and swerved into the vehicle. The Authority found that the exact type of military vehicle involved in the incident was not material to the broadcast and the accuracy standard did not apply to this point. In terms of whether the vehicle was attributable to Russian or Ukrainian forces, and whether the collision was deliberate, given conflicting reports it was unclear whether the broadcast was misleading on these points....

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 not upheld complaints an item on Sunday breached the accuracy, balance, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast featured a 30 minute report on Aotearoa New Zealand’s medical staffing shortages, and explored whether this issue could be alleviated by the migration of medical staff from the USA, particularly those dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v Wade. The complainants considered the broadcast unbalanced, favouring a ‘pro-choice’ perspective....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of The Simpsons breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. Considering the relevant contextual factors, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, to undermine widely shared community standards or to cause harm to children. The Authority considered the episode did not contain material beyond what viewers could reasonably expect from the programme. The Authority also found the item did not contain any graphic depictions of violence. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

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...