Search Rapua

SummaryA radio station announcer, claiming he was doing a survey on STDs, telephoned a woman and asked a number of personal and intimate questions. The call was broadcast live on The Edge on 30 November 1998 at about 4. 00pm. J, the woman who received the call, had identified herself using her first name and employer’s name. She complained to the station that the call was a serious invasion of her privacy as she was never told that the caller was from a radio station, or that it was being broadcast live. J said the comments ranged from being personal to obscene, and cited some examples. When the matter was referred to the station initially, J received an apology both from the station manager and the announcer....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-071 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LAWRIE MALATIOS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – scene contained two female characters kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and controversial issues standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – kissing scene was brief and innocuous – not made less acceptable by the fact the kiss was between two women – content was consistent with the programme’s G rating and not unsuitable for children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme was correctly rated G and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes – Coronation Street was a fictional drama – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-104:Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104 PDF313. 81 KB...

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

ComplaintSomething for the Weekend – fiancee asked to identify her fiance’s penis from those of four other men – exposing penises – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard G2 – context – adult comedy and penises partly dressed – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Something for the Weekend was a British studio-based entertainment series broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm each Saturday evening. It used fun and unusual games to look at love, sex and relationships. In a segment in the programme broadcast on 7 July 2001, Leanne, a contestant was asked to identify her fiance from a group of five men. Each man was concealed in a large filing cabinet and the penis was the only part of each man’s body that Leanne saw. Each penis had been "dressed" to represent a famous detective character....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – news item reported on a court trial in which several people were accused of being involved in the death of a toddler – included details of the abuse suffered by the child – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of the abuse were not gratuitous – no warning required – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item, broadcast on Newstalk ZB at 5pm on Tuesday 21 October 2008, reported on the High Court trial of several people in relation to the death of a toddler. The presenter began the report by stating: The Crown has today outlined the horrific abuse Rotorua pre-schooler Nia Glassie went through for months before her death....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-002:Bartlett and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-002 PDF307. 38 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-093 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P F NOBLE of Mount Maunganui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

A complaint that a segment on The Breakfast Club, on More FM, where the hosts made jokes and puns about a woman who died after being pecked by a rooster, breached the good taste and decency standard has not been upheld. The Authority found that, while the comments were insensitive and had the potential to cause offence to family of the deceased, the programme as a whole did not reach the threshold required to justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority found that, considering the context of the item (including the target audience of More FM and the audience expectations surrounding The Breakfast Club and its hosts) and the tone of the item, the item did not undermine widely shared community standards and was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress. Not upheld: Good taste and decency...

An item on Seven Sharp featured a community hunting event for children under the age of 16. The item included footage of children using firearms, children carrying dead animals, and animal carcasses hanging by their hind legs. Taking into account the relevant contextual factors including the programme’s target audience and audience expectations, the Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority noted that the item did not depict animals dying or being killed, and the content was clearly signposted by the presenters. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

SummaryIn an item on Morning Report broadcast on 12 August at 7. 28am, the presenter suggested to an investment advisor, when he was interviewed about the possible sale of the Wellington Airport, that potential buyers would "have to be blind" to think the sale was not a political minefield. Mr Mosen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that he, as a blind person, found the comment highly offensive, as it equated blindness with stupidity. He maintained that it was distressing and unhelpful to have ignorant and inaccurate perceptions about blindness reflected by a current affairs presenter. He sought an apology. RNZ defended the use of the phrase which it asserted was used in a colloquial sense and also a metaphorical sense, and maintained that the meaning of the figurative use was perfectly clear....

Summary "Six Days in a Leaky Boat" was the name of the documentary broadcast on Inside New Zealand on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 24 March 1999. It featured six people in their twenties who were sailing a yacht in the Bay of Islands, and who had never met before. They were required to perform a number of objectives in difficult circumstances. Mr Stewart complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used and behaviour shown in a programme about boating was unacceptable and in breach of the standards. Furthermore, he wrote, the "foul" language used was advanced as acceptable, which amounted to a deceptive programme practice. Explaining that the programme was about the relationships between six people in their twenties who were required to perform difficult tasks, TV3 said that the unscripted programme captured their reactions....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Afternoons with Wendyl Nissen with a journalist, about an article she had written regarding the upcoming perjury trial of the secret witnesses who testified in David Tamihere’s murder trial. During the interview the journalist discussed the discovery of one victim’s body, saying, ‘you think of a body turning up… it’s really… bones. The trampers who found [the] body actually stepped on it before they saw it. ’ Ms Nissen replied: ‘So there was a crunch’, adding, ‘– sorry to be disgusting’. A complaint was made that this comment was ‘disgusting, disrespectful’ and ‘in poor taste’....