Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-013 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAHAM DRAKE of Rotorua Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintTalkback – Radio Pacific – host rude to callers FindingsPrinciple 1 – no tape – reported remarks not exceptional in talkback context – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Talkback discussion about equestrian Mark Todd’s alleged cocaine use was broadcast on Radio Pacific on 6 July 2000 between 7. 00–8. 00am. The host supported Mr Todd. Alex Watson complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the host’s conduct had been objectionable. He cited some examples of callers being subjected to what he termed abusive treatment after expressing their views, and noted that although some callers had tried to remonstrate with the host, they had been cut off before they could speak. In his view, this was not part of free speech talkback, and did nothing for the reputation of the station....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – after an item about duck hunting maimais, the news presenter stated “a man needs his cave” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – complainant mistaken – broadcaster’s response adequate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6. 55pm on Friday 2 May 2008, reported on a group of duck-hunting “Southern men” who held an annual award ceremony for the best maimai (a camouflaged construction that shelters and hides duck hunters). The item looked at two different maimais, one consisting of a raised camouflaged caravan, and the other a small house-like structure that had running water, beer on tap and SKY television....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reporting that Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards had disappointed both critics and fans – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item did not include material which breached good taste and decency norms – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Michael Jackson – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards in London was covered in an item broadcast on One News on TV One on 17 November 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on Paris Hilton going to jail – presenter made comments about Ms Hilton and threw a box of tissues over her shoulder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, fairness, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter acted in a light-heated and off-the-cuff manner – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter expressed her own opinion in a light-hearted way – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item would not have disturbed child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – priest accidentally removed “Pope’s” head and sewed it back on – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An animated comedy series called Popetown centred around Father Nicholas, an idealistic young priest who lives in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown) with a group of corrupt cardinals and a pogo-stick riding infantile Pope....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

ComplaintThe Craft – film – theme witchcraft and sorcery – evil and violent – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – warning – AO – fantasy theme – acceptable in context Standard V1 – minimal violence – neither gratuitous nor prolonged – justifiable in context Standard V16 – warning – 8. 30pm – broadcaster mindful of effect This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Sorcery and witchcraft were themes in the film The Craft which was broadcast on TV2 on 28 October 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm. Mark Singh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that "the evil and violent content" of the programme was unacceptable. He expressed concern about its impact on younger viewers. In its response, TVNZ emphasised that the film was a fantasy thriller which was quite divorced from reality....

ComplaintBig Brother – offensive behaviour – nudity – immorality – inappropriate for broadcast at 6. 30pm – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – adult themes – unsuitable for G timeslot – uphold Standard G8 – G classification incorrect – uphold Standard G12 – broadcaster not mindful of effect of broadcast on children – uphold No Order (but recommendation for a written apology) This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Big Brother is a television series which features a group of people who are confined in a house in Australia and continuously monitored by cameras. It is broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm Tuesdays to Saturdays. On Monday's Big Brother is broadcast at 6. 00pm. For the first two weeks the series was screened, the programme was broadcast on Mondays at 6. 30pm....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bomber’s Blog – presenter Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury used the word “fucking” and the words “Oh fuck” were displayed onscreen – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – political commentary and satire are important forms of speech – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During an episode of Bomber’s Blog, broadcast on Triangle TV at 9. 45pm on 7 December 2011, the presenter Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, while reviewing the week’s political news, referred to “John fucking Banks”. He also ran a segment “Wank o’ the Week” in which a graphic stating “Oh fuck” was displayed onscreen. The programme was preceded by the following graphic: Caution: High explosives. The content of the following programme may not reflect the views and opinions of Triangle Stratos....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a late night talkback programme with a fill-in host, a caller expressed her attitude to the Royal family by reference to what she described as ‘Charles raping Diana’. The host challenged this and asked her what she meant. She spoke about how the Queen ‘devised the “three in the bed” scenario’ and how she felt sorry for Diana. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to rape was unacceptable and the host should have terminated the call. It appeared the caller did not mean ‘rape’ in the literal sense, the conversation was not unduly offensive in the context of a late night talkback programme, and the host acted responsibly by asking the caller to clarify her point....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-054:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-054 PDF314. 43 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-081:Collier and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-081 PDF261. 39 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 96/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W I G FOUNTAIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-170 Decision No: 1966-171 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ANNE BAKER (2) of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryThe results of a paternity test were revealed live during the broadcast of You be the Judge on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The child, who was 6 years old, was present in the studio when it was revealed that his mother’s former husband was his father. The Commissioner for Children, Ursula Cheer, John Caldwell and David Rowe, Gillian Davies, Marianne Hardgrave, Mike Doolan on behalf of the Children Young Persons and their Families Agency, Charles and Helen Harrington-Johnson, Bronwyn Hayward on behalf of the Children’s Television Foundation and Aroha Reihana complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast violated the child’s right to privacy....