Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Babel – young female movie character shown exposing her genitals at approximately 9. 01pm – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children's interests and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – genital nudity brief and indistinct – relevant to storyline – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – movie correctly classified AO – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Babel was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Saturday 14 August 2010. The film followed four seemingly unrelated stories about people living in different parts of the world that eventually intertwined and led back to a powerful gun bought by a Moroccan goat herder....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter referred to Tip Top ice cream competition and informed viewers how to enter – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – segment did not threaten objectives behind “responsible programming” – promotions of this nature are now commonplace – Broadcasting Act and standards as written do not contemplate this type of segment or give authority to address these issues – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching, in the manner envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During a segment on Breakfast, the presenter referred to a ‘Feel Tip Top Giveaway’ competition....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Home and Away – programme classified G and broadcast at 5. 30pm contained storyline involving the date rape of a teenage girl – allegedly in breach of responsible programming, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – episode was unsuitable for unsupervised child viewers and incorrectly classified G – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Home and Away, an Australian soap opera, included a storyline that involved the date rape of a teenage girl. The episode was classified G and broadcast on TV3 at 5. 30pm on 11 April 2013. [2] David Simpson made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the episode was “highly offensive” and that themes of rape and HIV were inappropriate in a G-rated programme....

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

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....

Complaint"Trial and Error" – 20/20 – David Bain murder trial – Milton Weir defamation action against Joe Karam – Weir’s admission that Bain jury was misled – inadvertent mistake – not first time admitted – unfair, unbalanced, impartial to present otherwise FindingsStandards G4 and G6 – impression given that first time mistake admitted – no evidence that mistake anything other then genuine – implication that Mr Weir might have intentionally misled jury – dramatic choice of language – interview with Assistant Commissioner of Police and reference to Police Complaints Authority’s report inadequate to provide balance/undo suggestion that mistake might have been intentional – uphold Standards G4 and G6 – aspects of complaint regarding evidential significance of mistake not a matter for the Broadcasting Standards Authority – decline to determine Standard G16 – standard concerned with the general viewing public – no uphold Standard G20 – reasonable efforts made to include Mr Weir in…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintPromo – 60 Minutes – "pissed off" – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the effects of broadcast on children – broadcaster not mindful of explicit material in promo FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV One at 6. 50pm on 10 November 2001. The promo was for an item on Dean Barker, New Zealand’s America’s Cup skipper. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about Mr Barker’s use in the promo of the phrase "pissed off". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – host prank called the National Poison Centre pretending that a friend had ingested window cleaner – allegedly in breach of social responsibility standard Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – the prank call wasted the Centre’s time and resources – the hosts knew that they did not require assistance from the Centre – the prank call was socially irresponsible – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item called “Win Dom’s Money” broadcast on The Edge at 8am on 9 August 2007, involved a radio personality named Chang being dared to drink a shot glass of glass cleaner for $60. Before the hosts allowed Chang to drink the shot, one of them rang a phone number located on the back of the bottle of glass cleaner....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2010-485-002008 PDF3....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-034:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-034 PDF 335. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-040:Ross and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-040 PDF441. 51 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of the Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom show interviewed an eliminated contestant from The Bachelor about her experience on the show. At the end of the item, one of the hosts introduced the new 'Bachelorette game show' titled, 'What's your cucumber number? ' The premise was for contestants to put cucumbers into their mouths and bite down. Whichever contestant could bite down the farthest along the cucumber would be the winner. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was demeaning to women and unsuitable for children. The broadcast was not outside audience expectations of the station and breakfast radio shows generally, and the innuendo would have gone over the heads of most children....