Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on the final stages of a court case in Auckland, known as the ‘Dome Valley’ kidnapping, in which a young woman was kidnapped, beaten, sexually violated and left to die by a group of her former friends. The reporter outlined the events of the kidnapping and the item featured segments of the victim giving evidence (with her voice disguised) via audio-visual link from another room in the closed court. The reporter and the victim outlined her assault and injuries in some detail. No audience advisory was broadcast....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Breakfast, in which the phrase ‘he rooted my missus’ was read out on air, breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that while the phrase was coarse and may have offended some viewers, the term ‘rooted’ was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyThe broadcast[1] During an episode of Breakfast presenter Jack Tame read out some viewer feedback which included the phrase ‘he rooted my missus’. Other presenters on the show were shocked, laughed and said, ‘you can’t read that....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the song Why Won’t You Give Me Your Love breached broadcasting standards. The complaint was that the song lyrics described an ‘intention to stalk, kidnap, imprison and rape’ and the song was inappropriate to broadcast in the afternoon. The Authority determined that the song’s satirical nature and upbeat style reduced the potential for the darker tone of the lyrics to cause harm. The song was within audience expectations for the eclectic music selection of the host programme, Matinee Idle and, taking into account the context of the broadcast, the lyrics did not undermine widely shared community standards and would not have unduly harmed child listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Two and a Half Men – episode screened at 7. 30pm contained sexual innuendo including references to being “spanked”, “wearing my panties”, and transmitting sexual diseases – showed naked man with his genitals pixellated – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual innuendo was inexplicit and sophisticated so that it would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – nudity pixellated – content consistent with programme’s PGR rating – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – episode correctly rated PGR – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about a Newshub item in which the presenter commented, ‘And I thought the only reason we watch Aussie Rules [AFL] was for the short shorts’, has not been upheld by the Authority. The Authority found that the comment, while inappropriate, did not reach the threshold to be considered a serious violation of community norms of good taste and decency. The Authority acknowledged the importance of contextual factors in considering whether the standards have been breached, including the nature of Newshub as an unclassified news programme and audience expectations of the broadcast. The Authority recognised that the statement was not made with malice or nastiness and found the comment did not breach the discrimination and denigration, balance or fairness standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bones promo – contained three brief shots of a girl with what appeared to be blood or dirt on her face – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo correctly rated PGR – images were fleeting and inexplicit – acceptable for child viewers under adult supervision – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – images were fleeting and inexplicit – broadcast during an unclassified news programme – would not have alarmed or distressed children – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Bones was broadcast on TV3 at approximately 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-028:McKay and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-028 PDF318. 05 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 140/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND ON AIR Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

SummaryA programme in the Documentary New Zealand series entitled "Hell for Leather" was broadcast on TV One on 14 June 1999 at 8. 30pm. It examined the fortunes of a footwear company managed by a prominent Maori businesswoman, as it struggled to avoid closure. Staff and management were seen to be severely stressed by the prospect of the business collapsing. Mr Christensen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used in a sequence where the manager and her staff were engaged in heated discussions regarding the company’s future. In his view, the language was unacceptable for broadcast, and should have been edited out. TVNZ responded that it considered the sequence to be important for contextual reasons as it revealed the extent of the strain the people were under....

SummaryAn episode of Hollywood Sex was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 26 August 1999. This two-part programme looks at some of the more unusual activities which take place in Hollywood’s sex industry. Mr Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contravened standards of decency, and that young people could watch and be influenced by "the very bad aspects of the programme". Mr and Ms Curtis complained that the programme was "the most disgustingly blatant sexual perversion [they had] ever had the misfortune to see", and that the programme was unsuitable for screening at that hour because of the likelihood of children watching. In its responses to the complaints, TVNZ said that it did not consider that it had breached any broadcasting standard. It noted that the programme was broadcast at 9. 30pm, carried an AO certificate, and was preceded by a warning....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 26/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ADOLF SOETEMAN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 67/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IAN PRESTON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-017 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by A J DALE of Wellsford Broadcaster HORIZON PACIFIC TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-011 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by YVONNE LENNON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...