Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 106/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANCIS FISCHER of Dipton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary A competition which invited listeners to relate how and at what age they had lost their virginity was broadcast on 91 ZM in Christchurch on 23 June 1999 at about 4. 30pm. Mr Eccleton complained to the station manager that by promoting the competition, the announcer was being irresponsible and cheap. He said he considered it to be "simply tacky" to promote the competition. When he did not have a response from the station within 20 working days, Mr Eccleton referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. At the Authority’s request, the station responded to the complaint. First it advised that it had not received the original letter of complaint, and secondly, that when the second letter was referred to it, it had not treated the matter as a formal complaint....

ComplaintIce As – skit about eating St Bernard dogs – offensive behaviourFindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A skit satirising media comment by the MP for Tauranga, Winston Peters, about an alleged trade in New Zealand bred St Bernard dogs for consumption in Asia, was featured at intervals during an episode of Ice As. The programme was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 20 May 2000. Charmaine Kendrick complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the skit was "ill informed and in appalling taste". She also considered that the item’s Tauranga focus was offensive, as she was a St Bernard breeder in that area....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reporter allegedly made the comment “a line of fools” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 3 (privacy) – material complained about not in broadcasts identified by complainant – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Episodes of One News were broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 19 and 20 October 2010. Complaint [2] P David J Cooke complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that, during a news item, reporter Miriama Kamo had referred to a group of people as “a line of fools”....

ComplaintOne News – car accident in which complainant’s son killed – reference to speed and alcohol – driver had not been drinking – poor taste – inaccurate – unfair – discriminatory FindingsStandard G1 – expression of opinion – no uphold Standards G2 and G13 – comments acceptable and did not encourage denigration – no uphold Standard G4 – a number of implications – implication about alcohol involvement no stronger than others – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A news item about road safety following 15 road deaths in five days over the Christmas holiday period, focused on one of the more recent deaths. A couple whose truck had been struck by a car which was airborne after striking the kerb, and in which one young man was killed, spoke about being extremely angry on seeing beer in the car....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item showed footage of female strippers dancing in a strip club – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – broadcaster was sufficiently mindful of the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 21 August 2007, reported on the controversy in Australia following an admission by an Australian politician that he had visited a strip club while in New York. The reporter then questioned several New Zealand MPs about whether they had ever been to a strip club....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News– item on Russian supermodels – reported on dangers of sexual exploitation in the modelling industry – comment about thirteen-year-old girl being paid to have sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – statement matter-of-fact and relevant to the subject matter – not salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at approximately 6. 22pm on 5 July 2010, reported on the worldwide success of Russian supermodels and the dangers of sexual exploitation in the modelling industry....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on the Boobs on Bikes parade in Wellington – contained footage of bare-breasted women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of bare breasts was not salacious – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheldStandard 7 (programme classification) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 7 November 2008, reported on the "Boobs on Bikes" parade promoting the Erotica exhibition that took place in Wellington....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – news item reported on controversial comments made by Breakfast presenter, Paul Henry, about Chief Minister of Delhi and New Zealand’s Governor-General – comments about Chief Minister re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – legitimate news report – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on Morning Report, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 6. 38am on 8 October 2010, reported on controversial comments made by television presenter, Paul Henry, on Breakfast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Listeners’ Choice Countdown – song titled “Killing in the Name” by Rage Against the Machine – broadcast at 9. 30am – contained the lyrics “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me” repeated 16 times, followed by the word “motherfucker” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – song inadequately censored – excessive use of expletives would have significantly departed from audience expectations – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 1No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A song titled “Killing in the Name” by rock band Rage Against the Machine was broadcast during the Listeners’ Choice Countdown on Radio Hauraki at approximately 9. 30am on Thursday 17 February 2011....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Wolf Creek – horror film contained drugging, sexual violence, torture and murder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 10 (violence) – extremely disturbing violence – inadequate classification and warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – outside children’s normally accepted viewing times – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Wolf Creek, an Australian horror film, was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Tuesday 11 March 2007. In the film, two women, Lizzy and Kristy, and their friend, Ben, travelled together to visit the meteorite crater at Wolf Creek National Park. When they returned from the crater, they discovered their car would not go....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bhajan Sanghra – host started a discussion about the National Party taking over from the previous Labour-led government – host believed that New Zealand's Indian community had been well supported under Labour – voiced concerns regarding what the National-led government would do to assist and support the New Zealand Indian community – encouraged listeners to text him with their concerns, which he would forward to the National Party – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and controversial issues standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintBreakfast – reference to song "Loyal" – presenter said viewers who disliked that song were "stuffed" – vulgar – offensive language FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The presenter used the phrase "If you don’t like that song, then you’re stuffed" when referring to the song "Loyal" played after a magazine item on the Louis Vuitton Cup for yachting. The item was included in the programme, Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am on 19 November 2002. [2] Dr McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the expression was vulgar and unacceptable in a news programme....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Intellectual Property – video clip showed people in a laundromat using washing machines and dryers for unorthodox purposes – showed a boy taking a dog out of a washing machine and placing it into a dryer – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – not broadcast during “children’s normally accepted viewing times” – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – placing dog in a dryer was not an act of violence to which the standard applies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The video clip for a song entitled “The Blues are Still Blue”, by Belle and Sebastian, was broadcast on C4 on Intellectual Property at approximately 10....

Complaint Classic Hits 89. 4FM Nelson - content of Nelson’s Mainland Television described as “crap” – offensive and unacceptable Findings Principle 7 – not applicable Principle 1 – not offensive in context – not upheld Principle 5 – humorous editorial comment was not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A news report that a city (Oslo) was offering trips through the sewer system as a tourist attraction was read on Classic Hits 89. 4FM in Nelson at about 7. 25am on Thursday 11 December 2003. The announcer added that, in Nelson, Mainland TV offered “four channels of crap all the time”. [2] On behalf of Mainland Television Ltd, the Managing Director (Gary Watson) complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unacceptable....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 37/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KIM TAYLOR of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-013 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAHAM DRAKE of Rotorua Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe morning broadcast on The Rock on 14 July 1999, included a "joke" about an Indian superette owner and his Pakistani worker. Mr Yousef complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that the joke was offensive and demeaning. He considered that the joke was both in bad taste and cast a "racial and religious slur". The broadcaster responded that the show was targeted at an audience of males aged between 18-39 years and that its style appealed to large numbers of that group. In the broadcaster’s view, those people were entitled to their own radio station which reflected their values, language and attitudes. The RadioWorks declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, Mr Yousef referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaint....