Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Date My Ex – reality series broadcast at 3pm contained footage of people drinking alcohol – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, liquor and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – presence of liquor in the programme was extremely brief and alcohol consumption was not glamorised – content did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly rated PGR – did not contain any material which warranted a higher rating of AO – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme’s content would not have offended the majority of viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 3 News item reported on newly released statistics showing a decline in the number of abortions performed in New Zealand. It included one possible reason why, put forward by the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced because it did not also include the ‘pro-life’ perspective on why the rates were declining. While abortion is a controversial issue of public importance, the fact abortion rates have declined is not, and there has not been any significant debate about the reasons for the decrease. The broadcaster was not required to canvass perspectives for and against abortion given the item was a straightforward report on new statistics....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the Commerce Commission's prosecution of a man and his company Probitas, who were marketing a fertiliser system – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme failed to provide viewers with a significant perspective which was critical to their understanding of the issues – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – promo – not unfair to expert witness – promo was a fair reflection of interview with the Commission's representative – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme – did not fairly present the Commission's side of the story – unfair to the Commission – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2182....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News– item on a Labour MP using his ministerial credit card to purchase pornographic films while staying at hotels – presenter mentioned that people had been making suggestions on the website Twitter about possible titles of the films, including “Bipartisan Bitches” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – remarks light-hearted attempt at humour – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual innuendo was too sophisticated for children to understand – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – 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 1989Sons of Anarchy – fictional drama about outlaw motorcycle gang – scene broadcast at 10. 24pm showed a man being shot and characters having sex in the presence of his dead body – allegedly in breach of violence standard FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sons of Anarchy was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Wednesday 8 December 2010. The drama series revolved around the lives of members of a close-knit outlaw motorcycle gang, the Sons of Anarchy, and their various rivals and associates. The episode contained a storyline that focused on one of the gang members, Jax, and his relationship with his high school sweetheart, Tara....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – contained sexual content and innuendo – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content was subtle and inexplicit – nature of sexual innuendo would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldStandard 8 (responsible programming) – the episode was correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An episode of the cartoon comedy Family Guy was broadcast on FOUR at 7. 30pm on Thursday 20 October 2011....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Downsize Me! - recommendations on weight loss and nutrition – allegedly inaccurate and misleading Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – "factual programme" in the sense that it reported actual events and offered general information – advice and "scare tactics" presented in personable way – general messages were to eat better, exercise regularly and improve health – viewers would have understood that most of the advice was tailored to the particular participant – however, broadcasters need to take special care when discussing medical conditions – endorsement of coconut oil misleading – one aspect upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Downsize Me! was a health, diet and exercise programme where overweight people worked for eight weeks to lose weight and reduce health risks. The Tuesday 23 September 2008 episode, broadcast at 7....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-032 Decision No: 1998-033 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by RUTH BARTON of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contained segment called “My Kid Could Draw That” – comments made about picture drawn by a child – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unnecessary for child to be identified – linked young girl to ribald adult sexual humour – exploitative – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme broadcast outside of children’s normally accepted viewing times – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme 7 Days was broadcast on TV3 at 10pm on Friday 25 September 2009. The programme involved the host questioning two three-person teams of comedians about various events which had been reported in the media during the week....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – discussed “the model who can’t go to fashion week because she’s too big” – interviewed the model and her mother as well as the manager of her modelling agency – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created clear impression that Nova was not putting forward the model for work because of her hip size – viewers would have been misled by the omission of other reasons including the model’s refusal to work for Nova – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not deny that Nova’s manager explained the other reasons in his interview – those reasons were not included in the story – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on one individual – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline – item reported that Jeremy Clarkson had apologised for his comments that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of law and order, discrimination and denigration, and violence standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item was a straightforward news report about Mr Clarkson’s comments – broadcasting the comments did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – re-broadcasting Mr Clarkson’s comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Introduction [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2010-485-2161 PDF106. 39 KBMember Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this interlocutary matter. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about meeting between Minister of Social Development and woman whose benefit details had been publicly released by the Minister – question of whether Authority has jurisdiction to accept a referral of the complaint Ruling29 April news item – majority decision – Authority has jurisdiction to accept the referral30 April news item – Authority does not have jurisdiction to accept the referralThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – host of comedy programme said “motherfucker” with reference to MP Hone Harawira – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was legitimate humour referencing earlier news story about Hone Harawira – consistent with expectations of New Zealand comedy programme broadcast at 9. 30pm – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 7 Days, a comedy programme in which two teams of comedians reviewed the week’s events, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Friday 11 February 2011. During a segment called, “My Kid Could Draw That”, both teams were asked to guess which event from the week a school pupil had drawn. One of the pictures depicted MP Hone Harawira leaving the Māori Party....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Californication – contained frequent coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was consistent with viewer expectations of the programme – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Californication was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Monday 18 April 2011. Californication was a black comedy about a self-obsessed novelist named Hank Moody. Between 9. 30pm and 10pm, characters used the following words and phrases: “fucking” (16 times) “fucked up” “fuck” (6 times) “bitch” “shit” (8 times) “asshole” (2 times) “shitty” (2 times) “balls” (3 times) “you smell like you just walked out of a fisting contest” “forced anal” (2 times) “motherfucker” “cock” “bullshit”....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....