Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-071 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – comment about recent pack rape allegations against Australian rugby league players – host described women who attended parties with rugby league players as “moles” and suggested that they were asking for trouble – allegedly denigrated womenFindings Standard 7 – Guideline 7a (discrimination and denigration) – comment encouraged denigration of women who socialise with rugby league players – not a genuine expression of serious comment – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 7. 55am on 2 April 2004 the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB (Paul Holmes) commented on recent pack rape allegations against a team of Australian rugby league players....

Summary The film Primal Fear was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 July 1999. It concerned the trial of a young man accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop. Aaron Authier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film was an attack on Christianity. He said he objected to the blasphemous language used and the manner in which Catholic clergy had been represented in the film. In his view, it should have been preceded with a warning about its content. TVNZ responded by noting that the film was classified as AO and was screened during AO time. Furthermore, it was preceded by a warning which emphasised that it was intended for adult audiences. To the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and misrepresented the clergy, TVNZ responded by reminding the complainant that the film was a work of fiction....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-120:Moffatt-Vallance and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-120 PDF383. 9 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-044:Jackson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-044 PDF209. 06 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, one of the characters, Harper, used the exclamation ‘Oh, Jesus…’ to express her shock and disgust at a flood of sewage in her new home. A promo for this episode, broadcast during the weather report on 1 News, also included Harper using this expression. The Authority received a complaint that this language was blasphemous and offensive, and in the case of the promo, inappropriate for broadcast during 1 News at 6pm when children might be watching. The Authority acknowledged that the complainant, and others in the community, might find this type of language offensive. However, the Authority has consistently found that these type of expressions are commonly used as exclamations in our society....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging Weekend Collective breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The programme referred to protesters occupying Parliament grounds as ‘vermin’. In light of the Authority’s recent finding that the standard does not apply to the protesters, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on a police search that ended up with two officers being shot and a police dog being killed – contained interviews with a neighbour living next to the property where the incident occurred and the Commissioner of Police – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview with Police Commissioner was straightforward and respectful – Mr Broad and the police treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s behaviour and comments did not encourage the denigration of members of the New Zealand police force –…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 47/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IAN RUSH of Gisborne Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

SummarySome of the children's programmes screened on Channel 2 over a four day periodbetween 25 and 28 June included Sonic the Hedgehog, Captain N, Swat Cats, KingArthur and the Knights of Justice, James Bond Junior and Mighty Morphin PowerRangers. Ms Bannatyne complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that theseprogrammes were unsuitable for children under 8 years of age because they relied onviolence for their main themes and contained inappropriate language. She suggestedthat such programmes offered poor role models for children and were generally of apoor quality with trite, trivial story lines. She requested that they be discontinued. In response, TVNZ advised that none of the programmes was in breach of anybroadcasting standards and, further, that many of them provided entertaining andstimulating viewing for young minds....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-062 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GERALD MOONEN of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-021:Wislang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-021 PDF333. 3 KB...

ComplaintOne News – item broadcast on Good Friday about modern Stations of the Cross exhibition – included picture of Jesus Christ on the lid of a toilet seat – offensive – unfair to Catholics FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – report of Christian celebration of Easter - context – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The modern and unconventional imagery used in a Stations of the Cross exhibition by a Christian Church group was featured in an item broadcast on One News at 6. 00pm on Good Friday. One image showed a picture of Jesus Christ inside the lid of a toilet seat....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-065:Effron and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-065 PDF372. 4 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Talk with Willie and Alison, host Willie Jackson referred to a caller (who seemed to snore, rather than talk, on the other end of the phone) as ‘one of those crackers’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the term ‘cracker’ was a racial slur which discriminated against white people and/or poor white people. The host did not appear to use the term in the way alleged by the complainant, but rather as a light-hearted reference to the caller’s state of mind, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, white people and/or poor white people in this context....