Search Rapua

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub discussed revelations that the pension of New Zealand First Leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters, had been overpaid for up to seven years. The segment featured excerpts of a phone interview with Mr Peters, details about Mr Peters’ press release and subsequent comments made by Mr Peters about the overpayments. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority did not consider that it was necessary to obtain a copy of the full phone interview transcript in order to determine whether the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair (as requested by the complainant)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and the City – fictional series about professional women living in New York City – scene broadcast at 8. 25pm showed woman walking in on her boyfriend performing oral sex on another woman – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard P2 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard P1 (content classification, warning and filtering) – programme rated “16” and had warning label for content that may offend – parental lock set to M would have blocked viewing without a pin number – not upheldStandard P3 (children) – broadcaster sufficiently protected child viewers from unsuitable content – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An episode of Sex and the City was broadcast on Comedy Central at 8pm on Saturday 28 August 2010....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 83/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by L J DARCY of Timaru Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19899 Songs – film included explicit scenes of unsimulated sexual intercourse, oral sex, masturbation and ejaculation – broadcast at 8. 30pm on Rialto Channel – allegedly in breach of content classification and warning standard, and good taste and decency Findings Standard P1 (content classification, warning and filtering) – 18 S classification was inadequate to advise viewers about the explicit sexual content – should have included a visual and verbal warning prior to the broadcast – upheld Standard P2 (good taste and decency) – lack of warning and audience expectations of Rialto Channel – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 8. 30pm on Saturday 7 July 2007, a movie entitled 9 Songs was broadcast on Rialto Channel. The channel was available to both SKY Television and TelstraClear subscribers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shameless – programme contained sex scenes, swearing and violence – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – broadcaster upheld complaint under content classification, warning and filtering standard FindingsAction Taken: Standard P1 (content classification, warning and filtering) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard P2 (good taste and decency) – incorrect classification and inadequate warning label meant that viewers were not sufficiently informed of the programme’s likely content – viewers were therefore denied the opportunity to make a different viewing choice and were more likely to be offended – upheld Standard P3 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently protected child viewers from unsuitable content by classifying the programme 16 – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Simulcast by broadcasters of the Good Vibrations Carnival at Cooper’s Beach between 1pm and 5pm Saturday 15 April 2006 – carnival organised as community response to Dr Neil Benson’s plan to open a brothel at Cooper’s Beach – broadcast included comments critical of brothel proposal and extracts critical of the proposal from the meeting at Mangonui Town Hall organised to discuss brothel proposal – broadcasts allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsDoubtless Bay Family RadioPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – approach taken in broadcast clearly explained and reasonable opportunities given for other significant points of view – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – Bensons not dealt with unfairly – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – brothel owners not denigrated or discriminated against – not upheldFar…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The E! channel featured an 'Entertainment Special' entitled The Real 50 Shades of Grey about couples who engage in BDSM (Bondage/ Discipline/ Dominance/ Submission/ Sadism/ Masochism). The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme encouraged sexual violence and normalised BDSM practice. The content was discussed only in fairly innocuous terms and no explicitly sexual or violent material was shown. However, the Authority upheld the complaint that the programme should have included warning labels for sexual and other potentially offensive content, as the subject matter had the potential to offend viewers. Upheld: Content Classification, Warning and FilteringNot Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, ViolenceNo OrderIntroduction[1] The E! channel featured an 'Entertainment Special' on The Real 50 Shades of Grey. Couples who engaged in BDSM (Bondage/ Discipline/ Dominance/ Submission/ Sadism/ Masochism) and experts on the subject were interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Shot at Love II with Tila Tequila – reality dating show where a bisexual woman dated 15 men and 15 women – allegedly in breach of children’s standard and classification and warning standardFindings Standard P1 (Content classification, warning and filtering) – programme borderline 16 but appropriately classified M – did not require S warning label – not upheldStandard P3 (Children) – not targeted at children or screened adjacent to content aimed at children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A Shot at Love II with Tila Tequila was the second series of a reality television dating game show starring bisexual American internet celebrity Tila Tequila....

ComplaintThe Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood – film screened on MGM Channel at 7. 30pm on TelstraClear – nudity and sexual content – inappropriate timing – TelstraClear upheld complaint as breach of good taste and decency – apologised – future screening rescheduled to 4. 25am – dissatisfied with action taken FindingsScreenings of films in future by TelstraClear will comply with Standard Subscription Code rather than Advanced Code – action taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The film The Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood was screened on the MGM Channel at 7. 30pm on 28 March 2002. The MGM Channel is available to subscribers of both Sky and TelstraClear....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-102 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS NORMAN of Wellington Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LTD J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Pirates – hosts discussed the act of people photocopying their naked bottoms on the office photocopier – one of the hosts photocopied his bottom on the radio station's photocopying machine and encouraged listeners to do the same – host invited listeners to exchange photocopies with him via facsimile – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – hosts' actions were inoffensive and harmless – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Morning Pirates breakfast show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 7....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision]A ONE News item showed security footage of a violent attack on a liquor store worker by four men to assist police in identifying and apprehending the attackers. Two explicit warnings were given prior to the footage. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the violence shown was gratuitous. It was an important news story aimed at identifying and catching the attackers and was accompanied by clear warnings from the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] A ONE News item showed a violent attack on a liquor store worker by four men. The security footage showed the store worker being punched, kicked and dragged across the store, having a bottle of spirits smashed over his head and being kicked in the head as he lay on the ground....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skins – programme about a group of teenagers in Britain – showed teenagers drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and taking drugs – contained sexual material, nudity, violence and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming, children’s interests, violence and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO9....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – episode showed three dogs being taken from their owner as they were not registered and were aggressive towards other dogs – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – focus was on dogs being removed from owner because they were not registered – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-058 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANN GILLANDERS of Auckland 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 1989Breakfast – host commented on prisoners being handed over to Afghan security forces – "does anyone care if we put drills through the heads of these people" and "we need to get out the Stanley knives" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were provocative and hyperbolic but intended to stimulate discussion – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on Tuesday 17 August 2010, presenter Paul Henry interviewed TVNZ's political editor on recent events in Afghanistan....

SummaryThe subject of liable parent contributions was discussed on Nine to Noon on 3 August1993 and unemployment on Morning Report on 13 August 1993. Mr Fudakowski complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the dissenting view given in thediscussion about liable parents was unsourced and therefore was neither balanced norimpartial. With respect to the second item, he complained that comments about theinevitability of long-term unemployment were deeply offensive and lacked balance andobjectivity. In response, RNZ denied that the news items encouraged discrimination against anygroup, or that they were so lacking in balance that they were in breach of broadcastingstandards. Pointing out that the items contained expressions of opinion about matters ofpublic interest, RNZ explained that it could find no justification for the contention that thereporting of those statements imposed an obligation on the broadcaster to undertake anin-depth investigation into the subjects discussed....