Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 6/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 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 I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Summary An episode of Shortland Street, broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited, between 7. 00 and 7. 30pm on 15 May 1998, included a scene which depicted a male and a female character in bed together after sexual activity. Mr Stanton complained that as the scene portrayed an extra-marital sexual relationship, it should not have screened in peak family viewing time where it would have been watched by many younger viewers. He also claimed that Shortland Street in general contained too many storylines which involved extra-marital sexual relationships. TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint that the broadcast was offensive, unbalanced or inappropriate for its PGR timeslot. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, Mr Stanton referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – reality programme in which contestants take part in repellent or frightening activities – contestants were required to tread in a vat containing live earthworms and were required to drink worm “juice” – allegedly offensive and not in interests of childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Guideline 9e – earthworms not animals under Guideline 9e – S1930 rating imposed by broadcaster indicated that children’s interests were acknowledged – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factor was screened at 7. 30pm on TV2 on 2 March 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factor as a “reality” programme in which the contestants are challenged to take part in repellent and frightening activities....

ComplaintBig Train – skit insulted Christians – blasphemy – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – legitimate humour – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A skit during the comedy programme Big Train portrayed an employer and employee as a devil and a Christ-like figure respectively. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 11. 00pm on 17 April 2001. B S G Lambert complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast ridiculed and offended Christians and breached standards of good taste. TVNZ did not consider that the programme had breached standards of good taste. It maintained that the skit had legitimately lampooned religion. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, B S G Lambert referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

FindingsAuthority declines to accept the complaint on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction to do so. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Complaint[1] Shirish Paranjape emailed Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) on 19 January complaining about its coverage of One Day International cricket matches between South Africa and India. Mr Paranjape maintained that TVNZ’s One News programme had only included coverage of the games won by South Africa, not India, and he alleged that this was discriminatory. Broadcaster’s Response to the Complainant[2] TVNZ responded that the complaint was a matter of personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Referral to the Authority[3] Mr Paranjape asked the Authority to review TVNZ’s decision. Authority’s Determination[4] We note that Mr Paranjape’s sole complaint was that TV One did not include coverage of certain cricket matches in its One News bulletins....

A PDF of Decision 1999-053 can be downloaded here:Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-053 PDF185. 19 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item showed brief footage of a stolen car, including its number plate – allegedly in breach of privacy standardFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant and her husband were not identifiable through the footage of their car and number plate – no private facts were disclosed about the complainant or her husband that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – item focused on the offender and how his background may have contributed to his offending – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Sunday profiled a young man who was a recidivist car thief and contained interviews with the man and with his family members about his background....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-045:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-045 PDF316. 8 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. ]At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter made reference to ‘bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets’ in relation to a photo of a cruise ship. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was inaccurate and in poor taste. While derogatory, it did not reach the threshold for threatening current norms of good taste and decency. The comment was an off-the-cuff remark delivered in a light-hearted tone, without invective, and was obviously intended to be humorous. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter showed an image of a cruise ship anchored in Hawkes Bay, saying: …they’re not disgorging logs; they’re disgorging bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Good Morning the presenter interviewed two recently eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the presenters referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, as these words did not feature in the broadcast. Declined to Determine: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A presenter on Good Morning interviewed two eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand, while they cooked a dish. The programme was broadcast on TV ONE on 17 April 2014. [2] Shane Moore complained that the programme breached the discrimination and denigration standard because the presenter referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, and attacked ‘mentally disabled people’. [3] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking read out a letter from a disgruntled viewer about comments he had made during an earlier episode about music group One Direction. The letter contained numerous expletives which were 'beeped' out during the broadcast. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the 'disgusting' language was contrary to good taste and decency and children's interests. Beeping is a commonly employed broadcasting technique to mask potentially offensive language. While most viewers would have discerned what the words were, in the context of an unclassified current affairs programme targeted at adults, which is known for being humorous and at times provocative, the segment did not threaten standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse by a man, P against a 90-year-old woman, E. The programme also featured P's 'mentor' (M), a spokesperson from E's bank and comment from E and her grandson. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. Both P and M were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment, the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the item was accurate and the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required the presentation of alternative views. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad showed dog handlers with the Department of Corrections searching visitors to a prison. The episode showed two occasions of the complainant (SW) being searched; firstly, her bag was searched when she was driving onto prison premises, and secondly, a sniffer dog identified that she was carrying contraband (tobacco) inside the prison and she was shown surrendering this to Corrections staff. In both instances her face was blurred. The Authority upheld SW’s complaint that broadcasting the footage breached her privacy. She was identifiable despite her face being blurred (by clothing, body type, voice, etc), and the disclosure of private facts about her, including prescription drugs she was taking, among other things, was highly offensive....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On an episode of Seven Sharp, the hosts discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and interviewed a law professor. The professor explained the contrast between the dispute resolution mechanisms of the TPP and those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After the interview, one host asked the other, ‘So these foreign countries could potentially hold the government for ransom down the track? Surely it goes both ways; surely we’ll have some control’. The other host replied, ‘Of course it does. Who did we take to the WTO? We’ve taken a number of countries to the WTO. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was misleading in that it suggested that TPP disputes would go through a similar process as the WTO, when in fact this was not the case for investor-state disputes....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host and others were shown not wearing lifejackets while on a fishing boat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that it was irresponsible to broadcast footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets. Although the Authority understood why certain parts of the footage shown in the programme were a cause of concern for the complainant regarding water safety, these issues were unable to be addressed under the responsible programming standard. Not Upheld: Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host visited the Far North of New Zealand and went fishing at his childhood fishing spot with family and close friends. While on the fishing boat, the men were shown not wearing lifejackets. [2] Graeme Carlaw complained that broadcasting footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets promoted irresponsible behaviour....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of the dairy industry in the Waikato region. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of dairy farming, and breached a number of other broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. The item was not inaccurate or misleading in the ways alleged by the complainant; rather, it focused on instances of bad practice within the dairy industry and did not suggest these were commonplace. Furthermore, the item did not breach the privacy of a local farming family, as they were not identifiable or otherwise referred to in the footage....