Search Rapua

ComplaintTarget – description of house cleaner as tradesperson – denigration of tradespeople – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – offensive Findings (1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – no uphold (3) Standard G4 – no unfairness – no uphold (4) Standard G13 – no denigration or discrimination – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 at 7. 00pm on 14 May 2000 featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial. One of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Listeners’ Choice Countdown – song titled “Killing in the Name” by Rage Against the Machine – broadcast at 9. 30am – contained the lyrics “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me” repeated 16 times, followed by the word “motherfucker” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – song inadequately censored – excessive use of expletives would have significantly departed from audience expectations – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 1No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A song titled “Killing in the Name” by rock band Rage Against the Machine was broadcast during the Listeners’ Choice Countdown on Radio Hauraki at approximately 9. 30am on Thursday 17 February 2011....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Embarrassing Bodies – episode focusing on vaginas broadcast at 8. 30pm – close-up shots of women’s vaginas and surgical operations – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme had educational value – clear pre-broadcast warning for nudity and medical scenes – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and preceded by adequate warning – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

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....