Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-059 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID PEGRAM of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on a strip club package for supporters of Lions rugby tour – naked women shown playing pool – demonstration of lap dancing – bedroom with mirrors shown – allegedly offensive, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children – presenter said “stuff you bitch” at end of programme about another matter – allegedly offensiveFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – not applicable to news and current affairs – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – sufficient earlier indications of focus of item – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The package offered by a strip club for Lions rugby supporters was covered in an item on Holmes broadcast on Prime at 7. 00pm on 24 May 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Liam – promo for AO-classified film broadcast during G-rated cooking show – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo was correctly classified – broadcaster adequately considered interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the AO-rated film Liam was broadcast on TV One on Thursday 18 November 2010 during Masterchef Australia, a reality cooking show which was rated G and screened at 4. 55pm. The 33-second promo consisted of a montage of scenes involving a young boy....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On two occasions, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children could be listening. The comments were consistent with the expectations of Radio Hauraki’s adult target audience, and would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners. Both items were light-hearted and intended to be humorous rather than offensive. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In two separate items, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The first item was broadcast on 5 March 2014 at 7. 34am and the second item was broadcast on 27 March 2014 at 7. 50am....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 13/95 Dated the 9th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN KIRBY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-014 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CENTRE FOR PSYCHO- SOCIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT in Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-006 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by N E ARCHER of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-160 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NEW ZEALAND POLICE (Otago District) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary A competition which invited listeners to relate how and at what age they had lost their virginity was broadcast on 91 ZM in Christchurch on 23 June 1999 at about 4. 30pm. Mr Eccleton complained to the station manager that by promoting the competition, the announcer was being irresponsible and cheap. He said he considered it to be "simply tacky" to promote the competition. When he did not have a response from the station within 20 working days, Mr Eccleton referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. At the Authority’s request, the station responded to the complaint. First it advised that it had not received the original letter of complaint, and secondly, that when the second letter was referred to it, it had not treated the matter as a formal complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nestle New Zealand’s Hottest Home Baker – baking competition – contestant exclaimed, “Oh my ring went into the cream! ” – host replied, “Usually it’s the other way round” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was fleeting and unclear – programme broadcast in AO time – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – rest of the material was acceptable in a G programme – comment would have gone over the heads of child viewers – correctly rated G – screened outside of children’s viewing times – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Nestle New Zealand’s Hottest Home Baker was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on Thursday 25 February 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

Summary Naked women were shown in promos for the programme The Making of the Human Body broadcast on TV One on 8 November, 9 November and 10 November 1998 between 6. 00–8. 00pm. Ms Hutchings complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the display of naked women in G or PGR time breached the standard requiring the observance of good taste and decency. In her view, it was not appropriate to show images of naked women when children were watching television. She also argued that it was discriminatory to show only naked women and no naked men. TVNZ noted that the promo included an extract from the opening sequence of each programme which showed men and women of every age, many of whom were naked....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 53/95 Dated the 22nd day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-054 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER NEWFIELD of Auckland 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. ]A ONE News item reported on the most recent report of the IPCC and summarised some of the report’s findings, including predictions of more frequent storms and droughts. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the summary was inaccurate, as the broadcaster provided information demonstrating a sufficient basis for the statements made. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on the most recent report (AR5 Report) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The item was introduced:Rising sea levels, more extinct species and possible food shortages. That’s the grim prediction by a global gathering of top scientists who say, for the first time, we are responsible for climate change. And as [reporter’s name] reports, New Zealand’s set to feel the heat too....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – resident dog trainer worked to retrain the dogs to be better behaved – dog training methods allegedly outdated and harmful – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes did not contain any material inaccuracies – commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as such – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes appropriately classified PGR – episodes contained clear disclaimer – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....