Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 40/94 Dated the 9th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 160/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALICIA LEE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on the purchase of a bluefin tuna at auction for nearly one million dollars – item contained footage of fish’s head being removed and a number of tuna being sliced and filleted – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – killing animals for food is a fact of life – images were not gratuitous and would not have offended most viewers in the context of a news item – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – filleting fish did not amount to “violence” for the purposes of the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that a number of cooking and fishing programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. Killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life, and the complaint was based primarily on personal preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about a number of cooking and fishing shows aired on Choice TV. Ms Feral argued that these programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. As examples, Ms Feral referred to footage of live oysters being eaten and catch-and-release fishing, both of which she alleged to be barbaric and cruel....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a promo which contained a joke that New Zealand’s duck hunting season had been off to a bad start because ‘someone accidentally shot Trevor Mallard’. Viewers would have understood the comment as a joke, and it was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or encourage illegal activity, nor did it contain unduly disturbing violent content. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order...

A promo of Killer Couples was aired during the programme Drop Dead Fred at 7. 49pm. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the promo breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority found the promo was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and did not go beyond what was expected in a PG classification. It also found the promo did not include any violent content as envisaged by the violence standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under several standards in relation to a segment on The Project. In the broadcast, comedian Justine Smith joked about throwing a half-eaten apple at anti-abortion protesters. The complainants alleged the segment was offensive, promoted violence and criminal activity, and discriminated against anti-abortion protesters. The Authority found that while the statements may have been offensive to some – in the context of the broadcast as a whole, taking into account audience expectations of the show, and the lack of any specific call to act – the alleged harm caused by the broadcast did not reach the thresholds required to restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression under any of the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, and Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 81/94 Decision No: 82/94 Decision No: 83/94 Decision No: 84/94 Dated the 19th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by BAYFIELD KINDERGARTEN of Dunedin CAROLYN BARR of Te Puke CHILDREN'S MEDIA WATCH of Auckland MOSGIEL CENTRAL KINDERGARTEN of Mosgiel Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for The Vampire Diaries – broadcast during a G-rated programme at 4. 55pm – contained shots of vampires and people kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence standardsFindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – images in the promo very brief and dark – would not have left a lasting impression likely to disturb or alarm child viewers – correctly rated G – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo unlikely to disturb or alarm children – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo was fleeting and inexplicit – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-168 Decision No: 1996-169 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR JOHN READ of Auckland and NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC. Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-044 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Wolf Creek – horror film contained drugging, sexual violence, torture and murder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 10 (violence) – extremely disturbing violence – inadequate classification and warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – outside children’s normally accepted viewing times – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Wolf Creek, an Australian horror film, was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Tuesday 11 March 2007. In the film, two women, Lizzy and Kristy, and their friend, Ben, travelled together to visit the meteorite crater at Wolf Creek National Park. When they returned from the crater, they discovered their car would not go....

ComplaintThe Sopranos – scene in which man attacks and kills pregnant woman – offensive – violence against woman and unborn baby – horrific – unjustifiable – gratuitous FindingsStandard G2 – unacceptable material – uphold Standard V1 – scene not essential or justifiable in context of programme – uphold Standard V2 – realistic violence used gratuitously for heightened impact – uphold Standard G8 – subsumed This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Sopranos was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 6 September 2001. The Sopranos is a drama about an American-Italian mafia family living in the eastern United States. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a scene in which a pregnant woman is beaten and killed, which he considered breached standards relating to good taste and decency, violence and appropriate classification....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 52/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by A B EVANS of Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host engaged in a heated argument with a caller, calling him a ‘dog’ and saying ‘someone should beat you with a shoe. ’ The Authority acknowledged that the comments were in poor taste, but found they were unlikely to undermine widely shared community standards because, amongst other reasons, talkback is a robust environment and the host’s comments were not explicit or graphic. For the same reasons, the Authority also found the comments did not amount to unduly disturbing violent content and that they were unlikely to incite or encourage violence. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence   ...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Face Off, a reality competition show in which the contestants are special effects make-up artists, screened during the animated movie Chicken Run. The Authority upheld a complaint that the promo breached standards of good taste and decency. The promo’s images of gory and wounded prosthetic body parts went beyond audience expectations of a G-rated family movie and were likely to distress child viewers. The Authority however did not agree that the images showed ‘violence’ or violent acts as envisaged by the violence standard. Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyNot Upheld: ViolenceOrder: Section 16(4) $500 costs to the CrownIntroduction[1] A promo for Face Off, a reality competition show in which the contestants are special effects make-up artists, screened during Chicken Run, an animated family movie which was rated G (for general audiences)....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]3 News reported on a gun attack on a Tunisian beach resort, and showed amateur video footage of the event. The footage contained images of people shouting and running around in confusion, and gunshots and bomb blasts could be heard. The footage also showed the gunman lying in the street after he had been shot dead by police. The Authority upheld a complaint that this footage was disturbing and should have been preceded by a warning. While recognizing the high public interest in the story and the footage, viewers were not given a reasonable opportunity to exercise discretion because they were not adequately warned of its nature. The Authority did not make any order....