Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-024:New Zealand Aids Foundation and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-024 PDF711. 93 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 115/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 28/95 Dated the 11th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANDREW MCLAUCHLAN of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 66/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MIKE IRVINE of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM Auckland University J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 139/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID TROOP of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint3 News – film review segment – review of "Crooked Earth" – excerpt included expression "kiss my arse" – offensive and unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The New Zealand film "Crooked Earth" was one of the films considered in the film review segment of 3 News broadcast on 25 August 2001. The review included a brief excerpt from the film in which one of the characters said "kiss my arse". [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that such offensive language was unacceptable at that hour and unsuitable for children. [3] In response, TV3 maintained that it was not unacceptable in the context of a film review, and declined to uphold the complaint....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2010-485-002008 PDF3....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....

Summary An item on Breakfast broadcast on TV One at about 7. 40 am on 9 July 1998 reviewed the contents of leading women’s magazines published during that week. A studio guest referred to Paula Yates, who was featured in a magazine, and commented that Yates was known largely "for shagging the famous". Mr Yoxall complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the remark was vulgar, and an unacceptable breach of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that the context of the remark was that the live studio broadcast was as tabloid as the magazines it reviewed. The comment was the guest’s genuinely-held opinion, and reflected a widely-held view of Yates. It was delivered in a light-hearted, laconic manner and, although unfortunate in view of Yates’ apparent attempted suicide, did not breach the standard, TVNZ wrote....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-019 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAY MAINWARING of Rangiora Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintLate Edition – news item – Solicitor General to appeal sentences of two convicted murderers, Dartelle Alder and Colin Bouwer – complainant convinced Mark Burton shown in item – breach of good taste and decency – inaccurate FindingsStandards 1 and 5 – complainant mistaken – Mark Burton not shown in item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Late Edition broadcast on TV One at 10. 45pm on 16 January 2002 reported that the Solicitor General was to appeal the sentences of two convicted murderers, Dartelle Alder and Colin Bouwer. The item included footage of the two men. [2] Ron Jenkins complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item included footage of Mark Burton, who was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity of murdering his mother....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP90-SW02 PDF980. 81 KBComplaintScream – movie – breach of good taste – glamorised criminal activity – inappropriately classified AO – broadcaster not mindful of effect on child viewers – broadcaster did not exercise care and discretion regarding violenceFindings(1) Standard 9, Guideline 9b – gruesome and horrific violence – scene at 8. 45pm – uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a, 9c, 9e and 9f – subsumed(2) Standard 1 – no uphold(3) Standard 2 – no uphold(4) Standard 7, Guideline 7a – no uphold(5) Standard 10, Guidelines 10a, 10b and 10f – horror film – included elements of parody – violence highly unrealistic – no upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Scream is a teen horror movie which parodies the horror movie genre. The movie was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 18 January 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ski FM – during 16 July broadcast presenter made comment about sucking diarrhoea out of someone’s bottom with a straw – during 18 July broadcast presenter made comment about drinking pig’s urine – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment about drinking pigs urine puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – comment about sucking diarrhoea out of someone’s bottom with a straw went well beyond what listeners would expect to hear on radio – comment would have offended a significant number of listeners – upheld OrderSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – male character injected with “gay gene” – went to “Straight Camp” where he was encouraged to drink, play full contact football, and “find loose women to have sex with” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and liquor standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – scene had clear humorous and satirical intent – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – scene was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld Standard 11 (liquor) – broadcast did not amount to “liquor promotion” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintA viewer of Outrageous Fortune complained about the "graphic naked sex acts", which were "bordering on pornography", and the line "I want your cock in me now", delivered by one of the female characters. The viewer said the programme breached standards of good taste and decency and was demeaning to women. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVWorks argued that viewers expected material broadcast at 9. 30pm to be "mature in nature". It said that the sex scenes and language were appropriate for the Adults Only (AO) classification, and maintained that none of the sex scenes contained explicit nudity. The broadcaster said Outrageous Fortune often contained storylines revolving around sexual themes and there was considerable audience expectation of the type of material shown in the programme....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] At the conclusion of an interview with a scientist on The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry asked her, ‘Did you have sex with Richard Branson? ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the question was inappropriate and discriminated against women. It was a provocative remark that was not unduly surprising given Mr Henry’s well-known style. It was also relevant that the scientist herself was apparently not offended and was aware she might be questioned about Mr Branson. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry interviewed a scientist, Dr Michelle Dickinson, about her research. At the end of the interview he asked about her recent experience staying with Richard Branson, a well-known businessman....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-013:Jensen and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-013 PDF279. 29 KB...