Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme’s reference to delivering tax relief was misleading as the Party’s policy of ‘tax cuts for the majority of families…[has] been proven to be incorrect by independent economists’. The Authority considered viewers would have understood the statement to be advocacy or opinion rather than fact, encouraging the public to vote for National, and the relevant statement reflected National Party policy; it is not a quantified promise, a guarantee, or a statement of fact. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy), E2: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party which included questions on possible funding cuts a National-led government might make. The complaint was that these statements were an inaccurate portrayal of National’s proposed cuts. The Authority found the statements were clearly questions and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than statements of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. The harm alleged was not sufficient to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention. Standard E4: Misleading Programmes did not apply. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy), E4: Misleading Programmes...

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....

ComplaintSky Digital Juice Channel 21 – music video – "My Favourite Game" by The Cardigans – lead member driving dangerously while singing – encouraging young people to drive dangerouslyFindingsStandard S2 – content not unsuitable for broadcast in context – no upholdStandard S5 – no disrespect shown for principles of law – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe music video "My Favourite Game" by The Cardigans, was broadcast on the Sky Digital Juice Channel 21 on 9 April 2001 at 10. 50pm. The video depicts the lead singer driving a convertible car along a desert highway. The singer places a rock on the accelerator to keep the pedal down, and is seen at various stages using her feet to turn the steering wheel. Her driving causes other car drivers to crash their cars on the highway....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of highlights from the ASB Classic tennis tournament breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The broadcast showed a player courtside at her players’ bench, bending over her racket bag while wearing (what appeared to be) a tennis skort. The player’s skirt lifted on a few occasions, during which the skort’s built-in shorts were at least partially visible. The camera was stationed behind the player and slowly zoomed in. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or undermine widely shared community standards. The clip did not show anything of an inappropriate or intimate nature and was not gratuitous. Broadcasts of professional tennis matches frequently feature footage of players courtside after matches. While the timing of the zoom was unfortunate, the Authority did not consider it was invasive. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

ComplaintPrime Living – magazine programme – incidental alcohol promotion – liquor promotion on backdrops and props – complaint upheld by broadcaster FindingsStandard A3 – presenter wearing clothing carrying name of beer – uphold appropriate – now robust complaints procedure – action sufficient Standard A4 – presenter’s clothing not backdrop or prop – not uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Prime Living, a magazine programme, is broadcast each weekday by Prime Television. During the episode broadcast in the Waikato on 15 October 1999 between noon–1. 00pm, the presenter wore a rugby jersey bearing the words "Waikato Draught". The Complaints Secretary (Cliff Turner) for the Group Against Liquor Advertising (GALA) complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast breached the standards relating to the incidental promotion of liquor, and to the use of liquor promotions on backdrops and props....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 62/94 Dated the 15th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-179 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by H M ROMANIUK of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R M McLeod J Withers...

During the coverage of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, host Goran Paladin provided pre- and post-match comments for the boxing match between David Nyika and Uladzislau Smiahlikau. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the broadcast breached the good taste and decency standard due to the host mispronouncing and mocking Uladzislau Smiahlikau’s name. The Authority was satisfied the comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint an item on Prime News, reporting on reactions to comments made by ACT Party Leader David Seymour on the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, as well as an incident where two men went to the Ministry and filmed staff while asking about expenditure, breached the accuracy standard. The complainant considered the broadcast breached the standard as it gave the misleading impression that two men had threatened staff at the Ministry as a result of Seymour’s statements, and it was inaccurate to suggest the men ‘threatened’ staff when ‘they only filmed staff while asking about spending’. The Authority agreed the broadcast’s introduction could have given the impression the two men went to the Ministry as a direct result of Seymour’s comments (when this occurred prior)....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate for a news item to include footage which allegedly featured a ‘crisis actor’. The Authority found that whether or not the footage was propaganda as claimed by the complainant, its inclusion would not have materially affected the audience’s understanding of the item overall. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the broadcast of UFC 286 Prelims Live on Prime between 8am and 10am, and re-broadcast on Prime+1 between 9am and 11am, breached the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards. The complainant considered the broadcast of mixed martial arts (MMA) fights was offensive and inappropriate to broadcast at a time when children may be watching television unsupervised. The Authority found, taking into account the context, including that UFC 286 Prelims Live was; an unclassified live sports broadcast; preceded by a warning that it would feature live MMA and would contain content that viewers may find distressing; had an adult target audience; and had a buffer of programmes unlikely to be of interest to children, the broadcast did not breach the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...

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 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(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Heartland – programme included image of the complainant – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard P9 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed – disclosure of the footage of him would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A episode of Heartland called “Grey Lynn: Summer in the City” was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland at 10. 10pm on 27 November 2010, and repeated at 8am on 28 November 2010. Near the beginning of the programme, a shot of the complainant leaning out a window in his house was briefly shown. Referral to the Authority[2] Te Awhitu Ransfield lodged a direct privacy complaint with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging sports commentary of the ICC World Test Championship final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The comments ‘it's a story that's akin to David versus Goliath…and living proof that sometimes, just sometimes, nice guys do finish first’ did not refer to a particular section of the community as contemplated by the standard. In any event, it was typical of sports commentary and did not have a prejudicial meaning. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...