Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of the Larry Williams Drive Show and a political editor discussed a protest that had taken place in response to the release of the Government’s budget. The host expressed his disapproval of the protestors and made comments about how he thought they should be dealt with, for example saying fire trucks cornering them from either end of the street. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments breached standards. The host was clearly expressing his personal opinion, and the political editor countered the comments, noting people living in a democracy are entitled to protest....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, the host Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller, the complainant, who went by the name of ‘Alex’. He said ‘back in 17-something… I’d meet him on the beach as the sun came up and I’d potentially kill him or let him kill me in a duel’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host had made a ‘veiled death threat’ against the complainant. It was clear the host was not making a serious death threat, but was using provocative, metaphorical language to express his strong views about the complainant. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller who went by the name of ‘Alex’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Vote 2014 which covered the results of the 2014 general election, used the terms 'jeez', 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus' as exclamations. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of these terms was offensive and inappropriate. The Authority has consistently recognised that the colloquial use of variations of 'Jesus' as an exclamation to express irritation, dismay or surprise is increasingly common and widely accepted. The use of the words in this context, during live coverage of an important political event, did not threaten standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During Vote 2014, comprising five hours of live coverage of the results of the 2014 general election, one of the hosts used the terms 'jeez' and 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus'....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-122:Glendorran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-122 PDF269. 28 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-021:Wislang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-021 PDF333. 3 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-004 Decision No: 1996-005 Decision No: 1996-006 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by COMPLAINANT L of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-110 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W M MOORE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-166 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOSH MOORE of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "The Complainers" – offensive behaviour – nudity; unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard G2 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G12 – AO – warning – 8. 30pm – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Documentary New Zealand programme entitled "The Complainers" was broadcast on TV One on 3 July 2000 at 8. 30pm. Among those featured was a complainant who has complained regularly about broadcasters’ practice of electronically masking the genitals of people appearing naked in programmes. He and a woman were shown naked in a brief sequence, part of which showed his body un-pixellated. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence, which showed the woman’s breasts and the man’s genitals, was offensive when broadcast in family viewing time....

ComplaintBreakfast session – Lakes FM – skit about felling trees for runway extension in Rotorua – bad taste – unbalanced – irresponsibleFindingsPrinciple 1 – sensitive issue, but not precluded from satirical treatment – no uphold Principle 2 – no uphold Principle 4 – other viewpoints aired – no uphold Principle 7 – humour – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary In a broadcast on Lakes FM on 19 September 2000 at about 7. 20am, two breakfast session hosts joked about felling trees to enable the runway at Rotorua airport to be extended. The background noises included the sound of chainsaws. Ngati Rangiteaorere, the owners of a stand of trees adjacent to the airport, complained through their solicitors to Lakes FM about the broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – contained interview with a psychologist who discussed different personality types in the workplace – presenter used the term “schizos” before and during the interview – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked necessary invective to reach threshold – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any person or organisation he felt had been treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 22 September 2009, contained an interview with psychologist and employment relations expert Dr Giles Burch. [2] At 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about the joking and flirtatious interactions between two males on a Breakfast programme segment. The Authority considered the complaint related to matters of personal preference and was not an appropriate use of its time and resources. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the usage of the word ‘root’ in a Seven Sharp item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority took into account the relevant contextual factors including the nature of the discussion, the nature of the programme and the audience expectations of the programme. The Authority did not consider that the use of the word threatened community norms of good taste and decency, or that any potential harm justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The host of The Paul Henry Show used the words ‘Jesus’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ several times to express frustration. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unacceptable. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] During an episode of The Paul Henry Show, the host used the terms ‘Jesus’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ several times to express his frustration at the show’s later airing time that evening and in regards to taking part in a Woman’s Day photo shoot with his co-host. [2] Mrs M C Ironside complained that the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ was unacceptable and deeply offensive. [3] The issue is whether the item breached the good taste and decency standard of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. [4] The broadcast took place at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...