Search Rapua

ComplaintThe Bits in Between – sexual/adult themes – offensive – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the programme’s effect on children FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – PGR rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Bits in Between was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 24 September 2001. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained sexual themes which were outside accepted norms of good taste and decency. He also considered that the programme was incorrectly classified and that the broadcaster had not been mindful of the programme’s effect on children. [3] TV3 declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paddle Pop Begins – children’s cartoon – main character’s name was the same as a brand of iceblock – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 8 (responsible programming) – accept that Streets logo and name of character amounted to branding or marketing – however programme was clearly a children’s cartoon rather than an “advertisement” for the purposes of guideline 8d – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme would not have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of the children’s cartoon Paddle Pop Begins was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 25am on 13 October 2011....

SummaryPromos for Catherine the Great were shown prior to its broadcast on 7 February 1999 beginning at 8. 30pm. The promos contained some nudity and sex scenes, as did the programme itself. Boyd Henderson of Oxford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, that the sex scenes in the trailers and the programme itself breached the good taste and decency standard. As a general observation, he also complained that the broadcaster failed to provide warnings as to the explicit content of programmes and promos. Many New Zealanders, he said, were like him and objected to watching such material. As TVNZ failed to respond to Mr Henderson’s complaint, he referred it to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint Shortland Street – episodes involving – casual sex (one night stand) – the use of toothpaste to make a child ill – ending an episode with voodoo-inspired fear – adult themes – inappropriate for broadcast to young people at 7. 00pm FindingsStandard G8 – appropriately rated PGR – no uphold Standard G12 – classification evidence of being mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Shortland Street is a long running fictional series broadcast at 7. 00pm on weekdays on TV2. The episode broadcast on 12 August 2001 included a central character having a one-night sexual encounter, the episode on 17 August raised the possibility of giving a child some toothpaste to make her ill to enable the mother to have a break, and on 21 August, an episode concluded with fear inspired by the use of voodoo....

ComplaintFor Richer or Poorer – movie – "fuck off" – offensive language – insufficient warning FindingsStandard G2 – language not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G8 – classification and time of screening appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary For Richer or Poorer was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 29 April 2001. For Richer or Poorer is a comedy movie about a rich couple who hide among the Amish to avoid pursuit by the tax department. During one scene, the wife tells her husband to "fuck off". Ken and Jackie Francis complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that the language was offensive, and that the warning for "coarse" language which had preceded the broadcast had been insufficient....

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. ]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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

Complaint under sections 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – Mr Laws interviewed the complainant, Karen Batchelor, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association – Mr Laws accused Ms Batchelor of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements – Mr Laws made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Action Taken – Mr Laws took an overly aggressive approach and continuously interrupted the complainant – he made comments that were personally abusive and accused the complainant of lying – overall complainant was treated unfairly – serious breach of fairness standard – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld Standard 5…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Turning Point featured a Christian sermon about the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme should have been classified PGR instead of G, and breached various other broadcasting standards. The programme did not contain any material which exceeded its G classification or which threatened broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Turning Point featured a Christian sermon about the second coming of Jesus Christ. [2] Scott McLoon complained that the programme should have been classified PGR instead of G, as any child viewers should be subject to parental guidance. He also complained the programme breached various other standards....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-085–087:Church of Scientology of New Zealand, Frater and Kershaw and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-085, 1993-086, 1993-087 PDF2. 08 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-006:Society for Promotion of Community Standards and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-006 PDF280. 39 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A promo for The Night Shift briefly showing a male and female passionately kissing screened during Shrek Forever After, which was classified G. The Authority upheld the complaint that the promo breached the responsible programming and children's interests standards, as the promo contained sexual material more properly falling within the PGR classification. The Authority did not make any order. Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children's Interests No Order Introduction [1] A promo for The Night Shift briefly showing a male and female passionately kissing screened during Shrek Forever After, which was classified G. 1 [2] Carol Henderson complained that it was inappropriate to show this promo for an AO programme during a G-rated movie and that it would have distressed and embarrassed children....

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?...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 54/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two items covering the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – first item contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court describing his attack – second item included the prosecutor saying the word “fucking” three times – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards Findings13 July item Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of attack given by Mr Weatherston were explicit – item should have been preceded by a warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning – broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item contained explicit details of violence – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld Standard 6 (fairness)…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw – interview with Sir Stephen Tindall – Sir Stephen made very brief reference to Joan Withers as a trustee of one of his projects – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Authority has previously declined to determine similar complaints from Mr Golden – complaint is trivial and bordering on vexatious for Mr Golden to continue referring similar complaints following Authority’s previous rulings – Authority declines to determine the complaint in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – broadcasts unsuitable for children Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) 22 November broadcast – 6. 31am – Principle 1 – uphold (3) 22 November broadcast – 6. 39am – no uphold (4) 23 November broadcast – 6. 39am – Principle 1 – uphold (5) 26 November broadcast – 7. 40am – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 and Guideline 7b – uphold (6) 27 November broadcast – 6. 35am – action taken insufficient – uphold (7) 30 November broadcast – 6. 36am – action taken insufficient – uphold (8) 6 December broadcast – 6. 19am – no uphold OrderTotal costs to the Crown in the sum of $3,000Cross-references: 2001-071–084; 2001-138–204 This headnote does not form part of the decision....