Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-154 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN TURNEY of Kumeu Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking read out a letter from a disgruntled viewer about comments he had made during an earlier episode about music group One Direction. The letter contained numerous expletives which were 'beeped' out during the broadcast. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the 'disgusting' language was contrary to good taste and decency and children's interests. Beeping is a commonly employed broadcasting technique to mask potentially offensive language. While most viewers would have discerned what the words were, in the context of an unclassified current affairs programme targeted at adults, which is known for being humorous and at times provocative, the segment did not threaten standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A and Marae Investigates – items discussed domestic violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed controversial issue of public importance – items clearly framed as focusing on men’s violence against women – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of domestic violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host and others were shown not wearing lifejackets while on a fishing boat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that it was irresponsible to broadcast footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets. Although the Authority understood why certain parts of the footage shown in the programme were a cause of concern for the complainant regarding water safety, these issues were unable to be addressed under the responsible programming standard. Not Upheld: Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host visited the Far North of New Zealand and went fishing at his childhood fishing spot with family and close friends. While on the fishing boat, the men were shown not wearing lifejackets. [2] Graeme Carlaw complained that broadcasting footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets promoted irresponsible behaviour....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-120:Moffatt-Vallance and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-120 PDF383. 9 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-036:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Canterbury Television Ltd - 1992-036 PDF264. 86 KB...

ComplaintsOne News – Late Edition – same item – person with cholesterol level of 43 – described as walking time-bomb – healthy level said to be between 3 and 5 – controversial – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – not controversial issue – no uphold Standard G6 – not controversial issue – no uphold Standard G14 – comment in passing on healthy level – no uphold Standard G16 – comment encouraged concern but not unnecessarily alarmist – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A man with a high level of cholesterol was interviewed on One News, broadcast between 6. 00 and 7. 00pm on TV One on 28 December 2001. The item described the man with a level of 43 as a "walking time-bomb", and the "healthy" level was said to be "between three and five"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sticky TV – contained episode of Wizards of Waverly Place – involved teenage characters talking about dating and kissing as well as two characters kissing – Sticky TValso contained a segment called “What Would You Do? ” in which a panel of young teenagers gave advice about kissing – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – Sticky TV correctly classified G – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programmes addressed contemporary issues facing teens – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sticky TV was broadcast on TV3 between 3. 30pm and 5pm on Tuesday 15 June 2010. Another programme called Wizards of Waverley Place was broadcast in segments as part of Sticky TV....

ComplaintThe Edge – ring-in competition – how to deal with unwanted singing hamster – some callers’ suggestions violent and cruel – offensive – illegal – inappropriate for childrenFindingsPrinciple 1 – insufficient information about context – decline to determinePrinciple 2 and Principle 7, guideline b – no tape – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Listeners to The Edge were invited to phone in and suggest ways of dealing with an unwanted singing hamster. The suggestions broadcast between 7. 50–8. 10am on 21 December 2001 involved various degrees of violence and cruelty. [2] Mr Butcher complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the methods were offensive, illegal and inappropriate for broadcast during children’s normal listening times. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr Butcher referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-042:Talbot and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-042 PDF695. 01 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-051:Greer and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-051 PDF815. 03 KB...

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. ]Worldwatch broadcast a three-part interview series with Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator, described as ‘one of the most powerful women in the Middle East’ and ‘a forceful advocate for Palestinian self-determination and peace in the Middle East’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the interviews amounted to support for terrorism, ‘[s]olely blame[d] Israel for all the Palestinian suffering’, and contained a number of inaccurate and misleading allegations about the Israel-Palestine conflict. The interviews did not contain several of the statements complained about, but were rather the complainant’s interpretation of what he considered Ms Ashrawi had implied. Other comments complained about were clearly Ms Ashwari’s opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Easy Mix – host made comments about smacking a child – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – newsreader made it clear that smacking children was illegal – broadcaster was sufficiently mindful of the effect the programme’s content would have on children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 7. 30am on Wednesday 16 June 2010 on the radio station Easy Mix, the presenter and newsreader had a brief discussion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Home and Away – showed couple in bed – camera with recording light on was positioned at the end of the bed – footage briefly shown of the couple kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – programme’s themes more suited to PGR but visual depiction of them inexplicit and acceptable in G programme – majority – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 8 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Home and Away, an Australian soap opera with a G rating, was broadcast on TV3 at 5. 30pm on Friday 31 July 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – news item reported investigation into allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by police officers – said woman claimed that serving police officers would arrive while on duty, use handcuffs and batons on her and that she was often strangled to the point of blacking out – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inappropriate for child listeners Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7b (child listeners) – contextual factors – broadcaster was mindful of child listeners – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on Radio New Zealand National’s Morning Report programme, broadcast at approximately 7....

Complaint60 Minutes – item on Ritalin – offensive – irresponsible – failed to respect principles of law – likely to place children at riskFindings(1) Standard G5 – no disrespect for law evidenced – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – public interest – current affairs – audience expectations unlikely to have been exceeded – no uphold (3) Standard G12 – not relevant – no uphold (4) Standard G16 – public interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on the black market for the prescription drug Ritalin was broadcast on 60 Minutes on TV One on 11 June 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. On behalf of ADHD. org....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a panel discussion on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show about the government’s funding of America’s Cup campaigners, one of the panellists said ‘fucking’. She immediately apologised for the slip-up, and the other participants rebuked her in a light-hearted manner. The broadcaster upheld the complaint and counselled the panellist. The Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. It noted the comment was made during a legitimate discussion about a matter of public interest, and all of the participants acknowledged at the time that the swearing was inappropriate....

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....