Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-052 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint3 News – comment by sports presenter about player "milking" injury – incident during rugby matchFindings(1) Standard G14 – interpretation acceptable – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During a sports item on 3 News about a head-high tackle which had occurred during a rugby match, the sports presenter commented that the tackled player’s team-mates were "quick to ensure he milked it for all it was worth". The item was broadcast on TV3 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm on 12 March 2000. Mathew Zacharias complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached numerous broadcasting standards....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-111 Decision No: 1996-112 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by M FRASER of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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?...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Our Land – included footage of a disagreement between two men after one had hit the other’s child for being naughty – the men and their families shown discussing the incident – both men shown re-enacting how the child was hit – allegedly in breach of the law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – violent behaviour portrayed as unacceptable and anti-social – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Our Land was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Sunday 3 January 2010. The programme followed three families trying to live the lives of Māori and European settlers in the 1800s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – presenter commented that “the white settlers were intent on fucking over the natives” in New Zealand – pretended to urinate on a public sculpture – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and balance standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – no realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – apology from Mr Holmes for comments he made about UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Newstalk ZB – apology said to be unbalanced, inaccurate and breached requirements for law and order Findings Standard 2 – not applicable – decline to determine Standard 4 – personal statement – balance not an issue – decline to determine Standard 5 – no inaccuracy – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Paul Holmes, the host of Holmes broadcast on TV One on weekdays at 7. 00pm, made a personal statement on Holmes on 29 September 2003 about some comments he had made on Newstalk ZB. Among some other comments made on Newstalk ZB, he had described the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a “cheeky darkie”. His comments had received extensive media coverage....

Summary Mr Mark Middleton, stepfather of a murdered 13 year-old girl, publicly threatened to kill the murderer should he be granted release from prison on parole. Because of this threat, the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Agency (CYPFA) removed a foster child whom he had been looking after for three years. In an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 27 August 1999, Mr Middleton was interviewed about CYPFA’s actions. CYPFA's position was advanced in the interview by Hon Roger McClay, Commissioner for Children. Mr Bracey complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item breached broadcasting standards as it failed to respect the principles of law, and was unbalanced....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During MORE FM Breakfast the hosts discussed ‘age-appropriate’ movies and invited callers to phone in and tell them what movies they watched ‘before they should have’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme’s treatment of ‘underage viewing’ breached the law and order standard. Personal anecdotes were standard fare for breakfast radio shows, and reasonable listeners would not have taken the programme as a serious encouragement to break the law or to allow young children to watch unsuitable films. Not Upheld: Law and OrderIntroduction[1] During MORE FM Breakfast the hosts talked about the animated film Frozen, and one host commented he did not think the film was targeted at ‘middle-aged men’....

Summary An advertisement for a light truck contained language which had been the subject of complaints to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB). The Board’s decision on those complaints was reported in a news item on TV3’s 3 News on 23 March between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Extracts from the advertisement, including the offending language, was included in the item. Mr Shierlaw complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that by screening the advertisement before 8. 30pm, as required by the ASCB, TV3 had failed to comply with standard G5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters to observe the principles of the law. As TV3 did not respond within the statutory 20 working day period, Mr Shierlaw referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bones promo – scenes including a human skull hitting a car windscreen, a human skeleton on a table and two characters kissing – dialogue about cannibalism – included on-screen graphics, one of which read “TV’s hottest crime scene” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – complaint related to programming content in general – decline to determine Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo incorrectly rated G – images were fleeting and inexplicit – broadcast was during an unclassified news programme – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintNightline – item about "Puppetry of the Penis" – penis obscured – inaccurate as truth concealed – sexualising human body breach of law and order FindingsStandards 2 – legal process followed – no uphold Standard 5 – item not inaccurate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The show "Puppetry of the Penis" was discussed during an item broadcast on Nightline at about 11. 00pm on 29 April 2002. The item did not include any visuals of penis puppetry as the reporter stated that the "full monty" would not be revealed in view of compliance with "broadcasting standards". [2] John Lowe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that in view of the material shown in other programmes, the comment was inaccurate. He also said that the item breached the requirement for standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

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. ]During a segment of The Project, the presenters discussed whether it was illegal to wear headphones while driving. One of the presenters, a well-known New Zealand comedian, said that he wore headphones while driving ‘because it drowns out the sound of the seatbelt warning’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s comment trivialised an important road safety issue. The segment as a whole carried a positive road safety message, with the presenters sharing their surprise that wearing headphones while driving was not illegal in New Zealand (though distracted drivers could still be charged with careless driving). The comment was clearly intended to be humorous and the reactions of the other presenters balanced the comment and signalled to viewers that wearing your seatbelt was important....