Search Rapua

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...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a broadcast including an interview with a lawyer who was represented as a ‘political commentator’. The complainant made several unsubstantiated allegations to the effect the lawyer was corrupt, and the broadcaster should have disclosed their alleged corruption. The Authority considered the complaint should not be determined in the circumstances as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preference on who should be interviewed, and how they should be portrayed, which are matters of editorial discretion not capable of being resolved by the broadcasting standards complaints process. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Law and Order, Balance...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2011-485-840 PDF137. 27 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – discussed anniversary of massacre at Aramoana – interviewed policeman who was involved – said “fucking” twice – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority’s research suggests majority of viewers would consider “fucking” unacceptable before 8....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-058 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT D of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold complaints that three broadcasts showing fishing and hunting were barbaric and cruel. As the Authority has noted in previous decisions on similar complaints from the complainant, killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life and her concerns are based primarily on personal lifestyle preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about three episodes of fishing and hunting programmes. In general, her complaints were that fishing and hunting are barbaric and cruel. More specifically, she objected to the practices of catch-and-release fishing, live baiting and boar hunting. [2] The issue is whether the broadcasts breached any of the standards set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments made by Paul Henry during Rebuilding Paradise with Paul Henry undermined the Director-General of Health’s directions regarding compliance with COVID-19 Alert-Level conditions. Mr Henry noted there were no new cases of COVID-19 on the day of broadcast and commented, ‘I don’t want Dr Ashley Bloomfield to threaten me and you with the “if New Zealanders aren’t good at Level 3, they won’t get to Level 2” warning. I realise people think he walks on water, but I don’t. …Obedience in the population is the job of the police and, god help us, the reluctant [Police] Commissioner’. Noting the importance of the right to freedom of expression and that Mr Henry was clearly giving his views on a topic of high public interest, the Authority found no actual or potential harm that justified regulatory intervention....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for 3 News – showed a man head-butting another man – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, children’s interests, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was fleeting and inexplicit and no visible injury was shown – broadcast during Home and Away and five minutes before the news – formed part of a newsworthy story – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – contextual factors – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – footage in the promo 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…...

The Authority did not uphold complaints that an item on Kerre McIvor Mornings breached the accuracy standard. The content was likely to be interpreted as commentary and opinion, and not statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. In terms of the balance standard, it was clearly presented from the host’s perspective. Given the nature of the programme, listeners were unlikely to have been misled by the omission of other views. The Authority also found that, in its context, the segment was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or undermine widely shared community standards, did not actively promote serious antisocial or illegal activity and was not unfair to the Government or Prime Minister. Accordingly it did not breach the good taste and decency, law and order or fairness standards.      Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Good taste and decency, Law and order, Fairness...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News promoted the new single from New Zealand singer-songwriter, Lorde. It featured clips taken from the music video for Lorde’s single, ‘Green Light’. In the clips, the singer could be seen leaning out of a car window and later dancing on the car roof. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was in breach of the law and order standard by encouraging reckless driving. The music video, and the news item’s promotion of it, did not actively encourage audiences to break the law, or otherwise promote criminal or serious antisocial activity, taking into account the context. The Authority found that viewers would have understood the singer’s actions to have taken place in the ‘fantasy’ realm of the music video, which made sense within the fictional narrative of the song....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, which broke the story of Dr Jonie Girouard issuing medical certificates to patients to attempt to use as vaccine exemptions, breached the privacy and law and order standards. The item featured hidden camera footage filmed by an undercover journalist posing as a patient at Dr Girouard’s practice. The Authority found the footage shown did not breach the privacy of other patients at the practice who were filmed without their consent, as they were not identifiable. It found that the footage did breach the privacy of Dr Girouard, on the basis she was identifiable in the broadcast, and the covert footage amounted to a highly offensive intrusion on her reasonable expectation of seclusion....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on duck hunting – hunter pointed a rifle at the camera – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – hunter’s action was intended to be humorous and light-hearted – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Morning Report item stating ‘Protesters occupying Parliament grounds have been calling for reinforcements…’ breached the law and order standard. The Authority found in the context the item did not actively encourage or promote illegal behaviour. In any event, the public interest in the item meant the right to freedom of expression outweighed any potential harm. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 124/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE PAVAN FAMILY of Johnsonville Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two hosts on George FM Breakfast asked listeners to send in the names and profiles of female users of Instagram described as ‘do-nothing bitches’. The names of two women, A and B, were submitted. The hosts went on to comment extensively on A’s profile, making inappropriate and disparaging comments about her, and also contacted A and interviewed her on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks having found breaches of the fairness and good taste and decency standards was insufficient, and also found that the broadcast breached the privacy of both women....

In an episode of Mai Home Run, one of the radio presenters related a story about accidentally taking and not returning a bag containing items, including a gaming console, belonging to Lil’ Romeo. The presenter also disclosed the name of one of the people involved in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached the privacy standard, finding that the named individual was identifiable and would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information disclosed. The Authority also found the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, as it had the potential to significantly damage the named person’s reputation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the law and order standard, finding that in context the broadcast did not encourage or actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour....