Search Rapua

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintIn a segment of Balls of Steel called "Pain Men", two men devise various methods of inflicting pain on each other. In this programme, one of the men applied an electric belt sander twice to the other man's bare buttocks. The injured man then had a nail hammered through the skin between his thumb and forefinger and into a block of wood. A viewer complained that the programme set a dangerous and stupid example, and breached standards of good taste and decency, law and order, and children's interests. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Balls of Steel was a comedy/entertainment programme that contained some sequences which created comedy out of the most distasteful acts. It pointed out that the programme was rated Adults Only, screened at 9. 30pm, and carried a warning that it contained scenes "which may disturb"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the murder of Deidre Tobin by her partner Craig Jackson – Mr Jackson found not guilty by reason of insanity – interviewed Ms Tobin’s family and friends plus two detectives who believed Mr Jackson was faking his insanity – allegedly in breach of law and order, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – Authority unable to determine the position of the Crown solicitor – overall programme was balanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Jackson, Dr Simpson or the Tobin family – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item entitled “Insanely Jealous?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on the sentencing of convicted rapist Roger Kahui included a brief re-enactment showing actor forcing entry into victim’s home – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item made it clear to viewers that it was a re-enactment – stylised dramatisation – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item was brief – unlikely to disturb child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not relevant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

ComplaintThe Tribe – teen drama series – violence – unsuitable viewing material for children Findings Standards 4, 5 & 6 – not relevant – decline to determine Standard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 2 – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for teenage audience – no uphold Standard 10 – violence ritualistic and symbolic – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An episode of The Tribe, a "futuristic teen drama" was broadcast on TV3 on Sunday 14 July 2002 at 9. 50am. [2] Francis Fielding complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained violence and was inappropriate viewing material for children. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr Fielding referred it 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 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-100:Minister of Women's Affairs (Hon Jenny Shipley) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-100 PDF635. 3 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on shoplifting – included footage of “security expert” shoplifting from two stores – allegedly in breach of law and order and balance Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Monday 9 June 2008, featured a story on shoplifting and the effects it was having both on the business community and New Zealand consumers. [2] The presenter introduced the item by saying: Tonight. . . we look at others caught on camera, caught shoplifting. In fact. . ....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 DNZ: Speed Thrills – documentary included footage of young male drivers exceeding speed limit – allegedly encouraged law breaking and glamorised speedingFindings Standard 2 (law and order) and Guidelines 2a, 2b and 2c – did not glamorise, condone or encourage speeding – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The programme DNZ: Speed Thrills was broadcast on TV One on 15 March 2004 at 8. 35pm. It included footage of two young men driving at night in excess of the speed limit. Complaint [2] Alexander Johnston complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the young men were exceeding the speed limit by “considerable margins” and that TVNZ staff must have encouraged them to do so. Otherwise, Mr Johnston wrote, it would have been pointless to have installed cameras in their cars....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Morning Talk with Mark Sainsbury a caller to the programme discussed her experience with divorce legal proceedings in the Family Court and subsequent appeals. A complaint was made that, by allowing the caller to disclose details of the proceedings, the broadcaster breached the law and order standard. The Authority expressed serious concerns with the way in which the call was allowed to progress, as private information was disclosed by the caller which had been suppressed in the Family Court. The Authority found the broadcaster needs to be more alert to the issues surrounding Family Court matters and similar proceedings as issues of contempt, as well as fairness and privacy, may arise....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 76/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P R PARRY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under several standards in relation to a segment on The Project. In the broadcast, comedian Justine Smith joked about throwing a half-eaten apple at anti-abortion protesters. The complainants alleged the segment was offensive, promoted violence and criminal activity, and discriminated against anti-abortion protesters. The Authority found that while the statements may have been offensive to some – in the context of the broadcast as a whole, taking into account audience expectations of the show, and the lack of any specific call to act – the alleged harm caused by the broadcast did not reach the thresholds required to restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression under any of the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, and Discrimination and Denigration...

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast on the criticism faced by London Police following their actions in stopping a vigil for murdered woman Sarah Everard, as participants were not abiding by the COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time. The Authority found the item was not unfair to the London Police Chief or the London Police. It did not actively encourage non-compliance or seriously undermine law and order. The balance standard was not applicable as the item did not amount to a ‘discussion’. Not Upheld: Fairness, Law and Order, Balance...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-144:Child and Aotearoa National Maori Radio - 1993-144 PDF230. 01 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Meaty – footage of Akon’s concert in Trinidad – Akon filmed simulating sexual intercourse on stage with a 14-year-old girl – allegedly in breach of law and order, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – accuracy standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no specific individual identified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers – item lacked an appropriate warning – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster failed to exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Meaty, broadcast on C4 at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Life on Mars – included a brief scene of a man having his hand held down and hit with a telephone receiver – allegedly in breach of law and order and violence Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was rated PGR – violence was fleeting – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the programme Life on Mars, a British science fiction and police drama television series, was broadcast during One News at 6pm on TV One on Monday 23 June 2008. [2] The promo included a brief scene of a man being interrogated....