Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 107/94 Dated the 7th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Clive 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: 16/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HOPE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 75/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GUY HEPWORTH of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

An announcer on The Edge Breakfast recounted an experience at her antenatal class where she discussed how to address constipation post childbirth. The complaint was this segment breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, taking into account the programme’s target audience, audience expectations, and the low-level language complained about (being of an anatomical, rather than a profane or sexual nature). Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – picture of a statue of Jesus Christ – voice said “Look at me, I’m Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you Mr Bush?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live – host described the late King of Tonga as “King, fat King, brown slug King, Tupou the fourth of Tonga” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – comments were made about an individual, not a “section of the community” – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] During a Radio Live talkback programme between 9am–12pm on Tuesday 12 September 2006, host and Mayor of Wanganui Michael Laws commented that he had been amazed to receive a directive from the Prime Minister’s office that the city should fly the New Zealand flag at half mast to mark the passing of the King of Tonga, Tāufa ’āhau Tupou IV....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Prince Philip’s birthday – host noted that the Prince had criticised a number of ethnic and social groups over the years – host mentioned the right to freedom of expression – showed a picture of Prince Philip defaced with a moustache and horns, with a speech bubble saying “I’m a dork” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – innocuous prank – raised no issue of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Prince Philip – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHavoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 – allegations about public relations companies – offensive language – inaccurate – unbalanced, biased and unfair FindingsStandard G1 – subsumed Standard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – serious allegations made – no acknowledgment that they were contestable – uphold Standard G6 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A sequence broadcast during the satirical programme Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 on TV2 on 15 August 2000 beginning at 9. 30pm, contained an interview with political activist Nicky Hagar. Mr Hagar made a number of claims about the public relations industry. Among references to various public relations companies, Mr Hagar named Hill & Knowlton, an international company operating in New Zealand, as being responsible for putting a favourable spin on America’s involvement in the Gulf War....

ComplaintChannel Z – "motherfucker" – "fucking cunt" – offensive language FindingsPrinciple 1 – breach of current norms of good taste and decency – uphold OrderCosts of $750 to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary I B Anderson complained to Channel Z, the broadcaster, about the expressions "motherfucker" and "fucking cunt" being broadcast on 30 May 2001 just before 4. 30pm. When the broadcaster did not respond within the statutory 20 working days, Mr Anderson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The broadcaster then responded that Channel Z was a niche radio station with an alternative format, and that its audience had a liberal view of language. The broadcaster agreed that the expressions were offensive and would not usually be broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live Drive – host referred to “dirty Germans” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted – was not intended to reflect all Germans – host was expressing disapproval of tourists stealing native wildlife – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment related specifically to the German tourists who had stolen native geckos – did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against German people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Radio Live Drive, broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 4. 20pm on 9 March 2011, the host said: Have you ever thought about stealing a gecko? Why on earth would you steal a gecko?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about launch of Green Party election campaign contained brief, out-of-focus background image of a person’s “butt crack” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 6 (fairness) – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 6 November 2011, reported on the launch of the Green Party’s election campaign. Green Party co-leader Russell Norman was shown addressing the attendees at the launch from a stage, and the camera panned down to focus on a baby in a pram. In the background of the shot of the baby, a person’s “butt crack” was briefly visible....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included footage of rugby player mouthing the words “fucking bullshit” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language inaudible which reduced its potential to offend – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – language would have bypassed most children as they would have to have been actively watching to understand what was said – news not targeted at, nor likely to appeal to, children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on TV One on 28 April 2012, reported on the fate of the Auckland Blues rugby team following their eighth successive loss....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a panel discussion on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show about the government’s funding of America’s Cup campaigners, one of the panellists said ‘fucking’. She immediately apologised for the slip-up, and the other participants rebuked her in a light-hearted manner. The broadcaster upheld the complaint and counselled the panellist. The Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. It noted the comment was made during a legitimate discussion about a matter of public interest, and all of the participants acknowledged at the time that the swearing was inappropriate....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-089:Smith and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-089 PDF263. 7 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Man Apart – movie about two American drug enforcement officers fighting an ongoing drug war on the California/Mexico border – contained violent scenes including shootings, car explosions and beatings – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – majority of Authority considered the movie’s classification to be borderline but correct – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers by broadcasting the movie at 8. 30pm on a Saturday – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster failed to exercise sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence by broadcasting the movie at 8....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints about Heather du Plessis-Allan’s use of the term ‘leeches’ to describe the Pacific Islands during Wellington Mornings with Heather du Plessis-Allan were upheld, under both the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority recognised the important role talkback radio plays in fostering open discourse and debate in society. However, the Authority found Ms du Plessis-Allan’s comments went beyond what is acceptable in a talkback environment, considering the use of language that was inflammatory, devalued the reputation of Pasifika people within New Zealand and had the potential to cause widespread offence and distress....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A short news item during Breakfast reported that the body of a German hostage, who had been beheaded by militants in the Philippines, had been recovered. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item depicted a ‘severed head’, which was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast, especially during a time when children were likely to be watching television. In the context of a very brief news report, the item would not have exceeded audience expectations and would not have unduly offended or disturbed viewers. The content shown was not graphic or at a level which required a warning to be given, and the story carried public interest....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a satirical segment would have been offensive to Christians. The segment was an imagined promo for reality show The Block, set in Jerusalem and featured contestants who shared the names of biblical figures, including Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Thomas and Judas. The promo was broadcast on Good Friday. The Authority did not consider the broadcast’s content would have unduly offended or distressed the general audience, and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The broadcast did not cause actual or potential harm at a level which justified limiting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...