Search

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-012:Tregurtha and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-012 PDF394. 96 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-015:New Zealand Police and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-015 PDF2. 1 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Edge Afternoons with Guy, Sharyn and Clint the hosts ran a segment called ‘Shaz Dog’s Love Shack’, where listeners could text and call in to ask for advice on love and relationships. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that ‘a discussion of sexual positions’ breached standards. The segment was consistent with the style of content and humour regularly broadcast on The Edge, and was unlikely to surprise or offend the target audience of 15- to 39-year-olds. Most of the content was in the nature of sexual innuendo and would have gone over the heads of younger listeners....

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-104:New Zealand Police and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-104 PDF2. 21 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-050:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-050 PDF632. 24 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Date My Ex – reality series broadcast at 3pm contained footage of people drinking alcohol – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, liquor and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – presence of liquor in the programme was extremely brief and alcohol consumption was not glamorised – content did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly rated PGR – did not contain any material which warranted a higher rating of AO – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme’s content would not have offended the majority of viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of the Jase and Dave Drive Show on Classic Hits joked about a ‘sex drive-in’ in Switzerland and made humorous comparisons with a fast food drive-through. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of sexual innuendo was inappropriate for broadcast. No coarse language was used and inexplicit sexual innuendo is permissible during children’s listening times. The host also indicated the topic may be unsuitable for younger listeners, giving parents and caregivers an opportunity to exercise discretion. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During the Jase and Dave Drive Show, broadcast on Classic Hits on the evening of Tuesday 27 August 2013, the hosts joked about a ‘sex drive-in’ in Switzerland and made humorous comparisons with a fast food drive-through....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In its Morning Report programme RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. The Authority declined to determine a complaint about this scheduling change, finding it raised matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In its Morning Report programme, RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. [2] John Malcolm complained that this change ‘discriminate[d] against those of us in provincial [New Zealand] who need to be abreast of Māori and rural issues’, because rural New Zealanders listen to the radio at a much earlier time of day and will not necessarily be able to listen to the full Morning Report programme....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP90-SW02 PDF980. 81 KBComplaintScream – movie – breach of good taste – glamorised criminal activity – inappropriately classified AO – broadcaster not mindful of effect on child viewers – broadcaster did not exercise care and discretion regarding violenceFindings(1) Standard 9, Guideline 9b – gruesome and horrific violence – scene at 8. 45pm – uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a, 9c, 9e and 9f – subsumed(2) Standard 1 – no uphold(3) Standard 2 – no uphold(4) Standard 7, Guideline 7a – no uphold(5) Standard 10, Guidelines 10a, 10b and 10f – horror film – included elements of parody – violence highly unrealistic – no upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Scream is a teen horror movie which parodies the horror movie genre. The movie was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 18 January 2002....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homeland – programme contained brief nudity and sex scene – pre-broadcast warning for “sexual material” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – warning for “sexual material” was adequate to cover the content in the programme – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified and preceded by an adequate warning – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Homeland, a drama series in which the CIA investigates a possible terrorist threat, was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 20 February 2012. At approximately 8. 50pm a woman was shown topless, being interviewed to be part of a Saudi prince’s harem....

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....