Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four promos broadcast prior to 8. 30pm – three for programme Bad Girls – one for quiz show How Normal Are You? – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – Bad Girls – material suitable to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You? – material suitable to be rated G – not upheld by majority Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Bad Girls – material appropriate to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – Europe correspondent discussed 13-year-old boy who had allegedly fathered a child with a 15-year-old girl – reported that other boys had claimed there was a possibility they were the father – commented that the girl was “a bit of a goer” – presenter referred to the girl as a “slapper” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 7. 45am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 February 2009, one of the hosts interviewed TVNZ’s Europe correspondent, who provided a weekly round-up of topical European stories....

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – “channel-surfing” segment – brief shot of “viewer’s” hands masturbating a penis-shaped dildo in front of the television – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – penis was obviously not real – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10pm on TV2 on 16 November 2007, contained a segment in which a “viewer” channel-surfed through a number of television programmes, some fabricated. The segment was constructed from the viewer’s point of view, so that the audience could see only the viewer’s hands. On three occasions, the viewer changed the channel to TV3, which was screening the breakfast show Sunrise. Each time, the viewer’s hands were shown doing something in the foreground....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Without a Trace – promo showed a woman interrogating a beaten man, who was sitting on a chair, his hands tied and bleeding – woman aimed a nail gun at the man’s groin and stated “…I will nail more than your hand to the chair” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo correctly classified as PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority agreed that the broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was brief – did not contain explicit violence – majority considered broadcaster exercised…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Benidorm – showed a man being slapped in the face by two different women – allegedly in breach of law and order, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence was slapstick humour – broadcaster exercised care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for three comedy programmes Bonkers, Benidorm and The Sunshine Girls was broadcast on TV One at 12. 27pm on Thursday 18 October 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Liam – promo for AO-classified film broadcast during G-rated cooking show – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo was correctly classified – broadcaster adequately considered interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the AO-rated film Liam was broadcast on TV One on Thursday 18 November 2010 during Masterchef Australia, a reality cooking show which was rated G and screened at 4. 55pm. The 33-second promo consisted of a montage of scenes involving a young boy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on Hone Harawira’s travel expenses – stated that he “racked up a $35,000 travel bill. . . that’s almost $4000 more than the Māori Party’s total travel bill” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair to Mr Harawira FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – comparison based on Parliamentary Service expenditure only – failed to mention that Māori Party MPs also received funds from Ministerial Services – created misleading impression that Mr Harawira spent more than the entire Māori Party on travel – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hone Harawira is a political figure who should expect robust criticism – not unfair – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 28 April 2011, reported on MP Hone Harawira’s travel expenses....

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....

ComplaintSpin Doctors Election Special – drama – public relations company, satirised while suggesting election campaign strategies – "piss-head" – offensive language – imitation vomit – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for older children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election special episode of Spin Doctors was broadcast at 9. 00pm on TV One on 10 July 2002. It satirised the staff of a public relations company as they were shown trying to put together election campaign strategies for a number of political parties. [2] Elaine Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about some of the language used and the behaviour depicted with reference to the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister deserved respect, not ridicule....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bogan’s Heroes – extreme satire about prison life – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and violenceFindingsStandard 1 – majority considers contextual factors sufficient to avoid a breach – not upheld Standard 10 – majority considers violence unrealistic and farcical – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 20 July 2005 at 11. 25pm, TV2 broadcast Bogan’s Heroes, a satire about criminals and life in prison. Complaint [2] Mr Cozens complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was tasteless and offensive. He noted that the programme was described in the Listener as an AO-rated “extreme prison based comedy”. [3] He considered that the programme was excessively violent, indecent, and extremely offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – coverage of the Makara cemetery desecration – graphic beside the news presenter showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Action taken – sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 August 2004 dealt with the desecration of Jewish graves in Wellington. [2] The graphic beside the news presenter during the introduction to this item showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol. [3] There was no suggestion during the news broadcast, other than the graphic, that the anarchist movement was involved in this incident....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 91/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOUTHLAND FUEL INJECTION LIMITED 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: 135 /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...

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION SummaryThe case of a social worker convicted of child abuse offences whose name had beensuppressed was examined in an item on Channel 2's 60 Minutes broadcast between7. 30–8. 30pm on Sunday 4 September. One aspect of the story was that his pastbehaviour had worried some of his fellow social workers who had drawn theirconcerns to the attention of the supervisory staff. Before the broadcast, Mrs MacKenzie, Chief Social Worker for the AucklandHospital Board from 1982–1991, declined by telephone to comment to 60 Minuteson personnel matters. She was subsequently approached by 60 Minutes' reporter anda crew – with cameras rolling – outside her home when leaving for work one morning. She again declined to comment and went inside. She complained to Television NewZealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the incident had breached a number of broadcastingstandards and in addition that it had breached her privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-150 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LIEUTENANT COMMANDER B I FOTHERINGHAM of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

An item on 1 News reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. In describing both contenders, the reporter referred to Bridges as an ‘absolute political mongrel’. The complainant stated this reference breached various standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it was inappropriate to describe the Minister as a mongrel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the term had a separate, complimentary, meaning which was clearly intended in this context. The discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item covering the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court describing his attack – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – viewers would not have expected the level of explicit detail provided – item required a warning – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Monday 13 July 2009, covered the day’s events at the trial of Clayton Weatherston, who was accused of murdering Sophie Elliott. The presenters introduced the item by saying: The university tutor who killed his former student and girlfriend has given his version of what happened in her bedroom that day....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Big Bang Theory – scene showed a male and female character drinking alcohol and then in bed together – allegedly in breach of law and order, responsible programming, children’s interests, violence and liquor FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – liquor consumption was borderline in a PGR programme but scene involved fictional adult characters in a comedic context – acceptable for children with parental guidance – not upheld Standard 11 (liquor) – programme did not advocate liquor consumption – no liquor promotion – showing liquor was incidental to the programme – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme did not contain subliminal perception – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – programme did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two items about the disappearance of a six-year-old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies in either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – 5 December broadcast not unfair to mother of six-year-old boy – complainant did not specify any person in the 20 December broadcast who was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....