Search

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the documentary was alarmist and misleading. The documentary largely comprised the personal opinions and experiences of the interviewees, and contained balancing comment. Not Upheld: Accuracy, BalanceIntroduction[1] A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of herbicides including Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The documentary was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland on 13 March 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The music videos for ‘Starboy’ by The Weeknd and ‘Sexual’ by Neiked were screened between 9pm and 10pm on MTV’s Top 20 Hits. The introduction to the music video for ‘Starboy’ featured singer The Weeknd being suffocated to death with a plastic bag. The music video for ‘Sexual’ featured a variety of animated sexual imagery, including animals having sex and a girl lifting her shirt to expose her breasts. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these videos were offensive and disturbing. It recognised that the content was challenging and understood the complainant’s concerns regarding the graphic content of such music videos and their impact on young audiences. However, the videos were classified 16C and broadcast between 9pm and 10pm on a Sunday evening, and the programme featured an audience advisory for content....

The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast of potentially offensive language in two episodes of Inside the Red Arrows breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The complainant made separate complaints about each episode. The broadcaster did not respond within the required 20 working day statutory timeframe, although once the complaint was referred to the Authority, it responded to Mr Francis advising that his complaint about the first episode was upheld. It later advised the Authority that the second complaint was also upheld. Upon considering the substance of the complaints, the Authority recognised the value of the documentary series, however, it found that as the episodes were broadcast at 7. 30pm, which is a time that children may be watching, and they were not preceded by any warning for language, the broadcasts breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Prime News item reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard at Auschwitz and referred to the camp as a ‘Polish camp’. The complainant alleged this statement was inaccurate because it was not a ‘Polish camp’, but was rather a Nazi camp located in Poland. The Authority recognised that the labelling of concentration camps as part of the Nazi regime remains a sensitive issue and one of historical importance, which broadcasters should be mindful of when choosing the language to be used. Nevertheless, in the context of the item the Authority did not consider that viewers would have been misled. Not Upheld: Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Prime News reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard as follows: A former Auschwitz guard has gone on trial in Germany for 170,000 counts of accessory to murder. ....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that two episodes of The Box Seat breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Pay TV Code of Broadcasting Standards. The Authority found that the segments about blood spinning in harness racing covered a controversial issue of public importance but failed to include balancing views on the issue being discussed or indicate that the programmes were presented from a specific perspective. The Authority also found that, although the broadcasts did not contain any specific factual inaccuracies, the omission of alternative perspectives and information on the safety and propriety of blood spinning meant that the broadcast was misleading as a whole. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard. The Authority considered the publication of this decision sufficient to censure the breach of standards by the broadcaster and made no orders. Upheld: Balance, Accuracy. Not upheld: Fairness. No orders...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A story on 60 Minutes featured tragic driveway accidents involving children. Part of the story focused on the death of an 18-month-old boy, and the subsequent struggles of his mother. The mother also discussed her other son, S, and photos and footage were shown of him. The Authority upheld a complaint from S's father that the programmes breached S's privacy. S was identifiable by name and image, he was linked with details of his mother's drug addiction and prostitution which constituted private facts and this disclosure was highly offensive. In the circumstances the broadcaster's primary concern ought to have been the best interests of the child, regardless of any consent obtained. The Authority recognised the value and public interest in the story but this was outweighed by the need to protect the child....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of children’s cartoon Shimmer and Shine breached broadcasting standards by promoting gambling to children. The episode focused on the main character’s quest to win tickets in an arcade with the help of her genies so she could get the prize she wanted. The Authority acknowledged there are similarities between arcade games and casinos and acknowledged the complainant’s concerns about the episode in this respect. However the young target audience were unlikely to make that connection, reducing the likelihood of real harm being caused by the programme. The Authority therefore found any restriction on the right to freedom of expression would be unjustified....

The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about the movie Overlord as the complaint to the broadcaster did not amount to an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the broadcaster did not have to accept this as a valid formal complaint, on the grounds the complaint was about the storyline and genre, rather than an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Declined jurisdiction...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Parliamentary Question Time – showed Deputy Prime Minister at times when he was not answering or asking questions – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard S6 (balance) – programme did not approach the proceedings from any particular perspective – balance not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Coverage of Parliamentary Question Time was broadcast on Sky News at 2pm on 7 April 2005. Complaint[2] Michael Gibson complained that the broadcast was unbalanced because it focused on the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, at times when he was not asking or answering questions. The coverage had shown Dr Cullen “grinning and derisively showing a dismissive attitude towards the Opposition”, he said. [3] Mr Gibson argued that the broadcaster had broken the same rules which had caused TV3 to be banned from filming in Parliament recently....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The 5th Wheel – two broadcasts – overt sexual content and nudity – allegedly bad taste – allegedly inadequately classified – allegedly unacceptable themes for childrenFindings Standard S2 (good taste and decency) – context – complaint about 6. 30pm broadcast upheldStandard S2 (good taste and decency) – context – complaint about 1. 20pm broadcast not upheldStandard S20 (children) – complaint about 6. 30pm broadcast – unacceptable for broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – upheldStandard S20 (children) – complaint about 1. 20pm broadcast not upheldOrder Section 16(4) – $1,500 costs to the CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An episode of The 5th Wheel, an American dating show which featured overt sexual content, was broadcast on Sky1 at 6. 30pm on 9 February 2004 and repeated on 10 February 2004 at 1. 20pm....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-051 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Prime News – pre-recorded BBC item reported on controversial comments by television presenter Jeremy Clarkson that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – focus of the item was the comment made by Mr Clarkson which caused controversy – therefore not misleading to omit footage of other comments – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a brief snapshot of the response to Mr Clarkson’s comments – did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue that was of public importance in New Zealand – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – higher threshold for finding unfairness to public figure – Mr Clarkson was not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers were not disadvantaged or deceived by the clip of Mr Clarkson’s comments – not…...

ComplaintBulworth – film – two screenings – obscene language – fuck – cock sucker FindingsStandard S2 – context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The film Bulworth, a political satire, was broadcast on Sky Movie Max at 6. 10pm on 13 June 2001 and at 4. 40pm on 18 June 2001. It contained a scene during which a young boy swore at a police officer and called him a "fucking pig cock sucker". [2] Phillip Smits complained to Sky Network Television Limited, the broadcaster, that the language was "obscene". [3] Sky did not uphold the complaints. It considered that the language used, when considered in context, did not breach currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language. [4] Dissatisfied with Sky’s response, Mr Smits referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the comment ‘Australia mugs the Black Caps’ breached the fairness, discrimination and denigration, and balance standards. The comment was typical of sports commentary and was not unfair to the Australian cricket team. As it was directed at the Australian cricket team, rather than a particular section of the community, the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. The balance standard also did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging comments made by commentators during a golf tournament breached the law and order standard. While discussing the difficulty of the course, a commentator suggested ‘Charles Manson put this [pin position] in! ’ Later in the tournament, the commentator said, ‘whoever set that flag, I can just picture him in his room at night catching flies and pulling the wings off them and watching them suffer’. The Authority found this would not have encouraged, promoted or glamorised illegal or anti-social behaviour in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

An item on Prime News inadvertently contained an uncensored image of the word ‘cunt’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the action taken by the broadcaster in response to this error was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaint under the good taste and decency standard and took steps to address the error with its news producers. The broadcaster also apologised to the complainant. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken)...

In an episode of Rugby Nation, commentator Tony Johnson made a reference to Israel Folau using the phrase ‘the F word’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The complainant argued that the broadcast was harmful to Mr and Mrs Folau. However, as two individuals they are not a recognised section of the community as required by the standard. The discrimination and denigration standard therefore did not apply. The Authority declined to imply the good taste and decency or fairness standards into the complaint on the basis that the original complaint did not raise arguments consistent with an alleged breach of those standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

ComplaintCommando – film – screened at 1. 15pm – violent – unsuitable for children – inappropriately classifiedFindingsStandard S20 – unacceptable violence – upholdStandard S22 – some violence involving a child – upholdStandard S23 – violence and language unsuitable at that time – upholdStandard S26 – extreme methods not capable of easy imitation – no upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The film Commando was screened at 1. 15pm on 15 December 2001 on the Sky Movie Channel. Rated "M", the film is of the action genre and starred Arnold Schwarzenneger. [2] Lewis Martin complained to Sky Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that in view of the quantity and explicitness of the violence, it was unsuitable for children and should have been classified as "18"....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment referring to a rugby player as a ‘Jew’ because he was unwilling to pay for his wedding breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority observed that the comment was an example of casual anti-Semitism and such comments can contribute to the normalisation of racism. However, while the Authority considered the comment to be ignorant and disrespectful, in the context it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...