Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-052:Creevey and Independent Broadcasting Company (1990) Ltd - 1992-052299. 79 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-105 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M D STEMSON of Coromandel Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryAn episode of Newsflash broadcast on TV 2 on 15 September 1998 at 8. 00pm contained, among other things, skits with a religious theme. Mrs Gruijters complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the skits were tasteless and offensive and she objected to what she perceived as an attempt to get laughs at all costs. TVNZ responded informally in the first instance, and when asked to respond formally, advised that it considered the complainant’s objection was really one of personal preference rather than an assertion that statutory standards had been breached. Dealing with the specific matters to which Mrs Gruijters objected, it maintained that there was nothing in the programme which breached the good taste standard, and nothing which represented any group as inherently inferior or encouraged discrimination against them. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mrs Gruijters referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

Complaint Holmes – interview with Prime Minister about refugees – reference to Nauru as a pile of bird shit – offensive language – inappropriate for school children FindingsStandard G2 – crude but acceptable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – minimal impact on children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Nauru was described as a "pile of bird shit" by the presenter on Holmes when interviewing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the Government’s decision to take 150 refugees from the Tampa. The item was broadcast on Holmes on 3 September 2001 beginning at 7. 00pm. [2] Alfred Howard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the phrase was totally inappropriate and offensive. He expressed particular concern that school children would hear the language....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Pirates – hosts discussed the act of people photocopying their naked bottoms on the office photocopier – one of the hosts photocopied his bottom on the radio station's photocopying machine and encouraged listeners to do the same – host invited listeners to exchange photocopies with him via facsimile – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – hosts' actions were inoffensive and harmless – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Morning Pirates breakfast show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 7....

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – report on Cindy Crawford – item contained photos of her from Playboy magazine in which her breasts were shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards The Authority's DecisionStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – majority – item did not dwell on the pictures in a salacious way – the pictures were tasteful and relevant to the context of the item – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – photographs were an artful depiction of the female form – no emphasis was placed on Ms Crawford’s breasts – sufficient consideration given to the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs programmes are unclassified – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

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....

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....

Complaint60 Minutes – interview with swimmer Trent Bray – allegations of steroid use – unfair to interviewee – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – swimmer given opportunity to tell his side of the story – not treated unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Swimmer Trent Bray, who had tested positive to a performance-enhancing drug, was interviewed on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 26 March 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. In an emotional sequence, he denied the allegation. J B Meiklejohn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inexcusable and unjustifiably insensitive to broadcast footage of the swimmer "incoherent in grief". In its response, TVNZ advised that the swimmer had not been coerced into participating in the interview, and had been aware of the scope of questions to be asked....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on proposed brothel aimed at women – contained interview with owner – promo shown during One News – both item and promo allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo and item covered legitimate story – neither broadcast contained visuals of brothels or sex workers – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – focus of promo and item was Ms Corkery – neither contained a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] A promo for Close Up was broadcast during an episode of One News on TV One at 6. 25pm on Monday 16 August 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Forgetting Sarah Marshall– contained three brief shots of a naked man with his genitals visible at approximately 8. 35pm – use of words “fuck” and “fucking” at about 8. 40pm – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – nudity was fleeting and non-sexualised – expletives were incidental and used colloquially rather than abusively – content did not amount to “strong adult material” broadcast too soon after the AO watershed – movie was classified AO and broadcast outside children’s viewing times – warning for nudity and language allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Forgetting Sarah Marshall was broadcast on TV3 at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Comedy Convoy – female comedian stated, “When I was in my early twenties I really wanted kids, like I really wanted them, but I just could never lure them into my car” – audience responded with laughter – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment clearly intended as a joke – broadcast in the middle of the day during the school term – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting the promo during Home and Away – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – promo correctly rated G and screened in an appropriate timeslot – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on, and interviewed, young Māori activist who expressed his views on the Government’s sale of state assets and mining proposals – presentation of item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – views expressed by Wikatane Popata represented one end of a political spectrum – his views were described as radical and audience would have understood that they were not representative of all Māori or young Māori – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on the Popata brothers and their political views – reporter took “devil’s advocate” approach and programme included viewer feedback – not upheld Standard 1…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the remark was blasphemous and offensive to Christians. The use of variants of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation does not amount to coarse language in modern secular society. Here it was intended to be humorous rather than abusive or offensive, and it was acceptable in context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The episode was rated AO and was broadcast on TV ONE at 10. 05pm on 26 September 2013....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 28/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAEME NORTH of Warkworth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During three items on Newshub, interviewees used potentially offensive language, including ‘piece of piss’ and ‘shit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that multiple instances of allegedly ‘foul language’ during a news programme were unacceptable. The Authority emphasised that the expressions reflected the interviewee’s choice of language to convey their response to the issues discussed, and were not abusive or directed at any individual. The Authority recognised that in our diverse New Zealand society, people may communicate using different kinds of language, and this will usually be acceptable so long as standards are maintained. In the context of a news programme aimed at adults, and items which carried relatively high value in terms of public interest and freedom of expression, the Authority was satisfied that the language would be unlikely to cause widespread undue offence among the general audience....