Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Forgetting Sarah Marshall– contained three brief shots of a naked man with his genitals visible at approximately 8. 35pm – use of words “fuck” and “fucking” at about 8. 40pm – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – nudity was fleeting and non-sexualised – expletives were incidental and used colloquially rather than abusively – content did not amount to “strong adult material” broadcast too soon after the AO watershed – movie was classified AO and broadcast outside children’s viewing times – warning for nudity and language allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Forgetting Sarah Marshall was broadcast on TV3 at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – promo broadcast during 3 News- showed one character asking another to "unbutton your shirt and your pants" – overweight male character shown standing naked in a fountain with his stomach covering his genitals – character shown in another scene bending over and having his bottom pinched by his female boss who said, "Yeah, this is going to work out just fine", after which a fart sound was heard and the woman said "excuse me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo was good natured, did not contain adult themes, and was correctly classified – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bones promo – contained three brief shots of a girl with what appeared to be blood or dirt on her face – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo correctly rated PGR – images were fleeting and inexplicit – acceptable for child viewers under adult supervision – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – images were fleeting and inexplicit – broadcast during an unclassified news programme – would not have alarmed or distressed children – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Bones was broadcast on TV3 at approximately 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – interview with a woman from Kiribati on a “personal mission” to save her homeland from the effects of climate change – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – it would have been clear to viewers that she was a climate change activist – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Sunrise, broadcast on TV3 between 7am and 9am on 19 August 2009, the presenters interviewed a community leader from Kiribati about her observations of the effects of climate change on her island. One presenter introduced the segment saying, “rising water levels and increasing temperatures are starting to have real effects on our day-to-day life....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – interviewed Cyclone Yasi survivor – reporter stated “Jesus, what went through your mind? ” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “Jesus” used to convey exclamation of shock – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Friday 4 February 2010, reported on Cyclone Yasi in Queensland. During the item, the reporter interviewed a survivor who explained that she had been sitting on the toilet when a big tree came through the wall, to which the reporter responded, “Jesus, what went through your mind?...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News: Firstline – newsreader interviewed a representative of the 'Occupy Wellington' protest movement – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – newsreader’s approach challenging but not unfair – interviewee adequately expressed his viewpoint and defended the position of the protestors – interviewee not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – newsreader’s comments did not amount to points of fact – interviewee’s perspective included so viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – comments did not carry the necessary invective to encourage discrimination or denigration against the protestors as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sticky TV – contained episode of Wizards of Waverly Place – involved teenage characters talking about dating and kissing as well as two characters kissing – Sticky TValso contained a segment called “What Would You Do? ” in which a panel of young teenagers gave advice about kissing – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – Sticky TV correctly classified G – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programmes addressed contemporary issues facing teens – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sticky TV was broadcast on TV3 between 3. 30pm and 5pm on Tuesday 15 June 2010. Another programme called Wizards of Waverley Place was broadcast in segments as part of Sticky TV....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for The Graham Norton Show – promo for Christmas special showed a photograph of a couple dressed as Mary and Joseph holding a dog in swaddling clothes – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour – would not have offended most viewers in context – innocent lampooning of religious figures comes within the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour as opposed to a criticism of Christians – content did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)3 News – item about the release of the United Nations’ fourth report on climate change immediately preceded item about glacial decline in New Zealand – introduction to second item began “the UN report seems to back up what’s happening here” – images of ice melting and falling into water – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – was a factual report rather than a discussion – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] UN Report on climate change During 3 News on 18 November 2007, an item was broadcast at approximately 6. 15pm about the release of the fourth report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which, according to the presenter, asserted that “there is no doubt global warming is man-made”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Thousand Apologies – sketch comedy lampooning the pan-Asian experience in contemporary New Zealand – allegedly denigratory Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – programme clearly satirical and intended to be humorous – skits did not encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of A Thousand Apologies, a television sketch comedy that addressed the diversity of the pan-Asian contemporary experience in New Zealand and lampooned stereotypes and situations, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Friday 12 September 2008. [2] One of the skits in the episode involved a man being interviewed about his experience with one airline....

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(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on “Chloe of Wainuiomata” receiving diversion for shoplifting – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – private facts disclosed were in the public arena – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 30 April 2008, reported that Chloe, a woman who gained notoriety in a 1990s television programme and who was nicknamed “Chloe from Wainuiomata”, had been charged with shoplifting. During the item, the presenter stated: Chloe, whose slippers made her a 90s celebrity, has been charged with shoplifting. The court heard that Chloe, formally of Wainuiomata, tried to steal twenty three dollars and sixty four cents worth of pet care products from a Napier supermarket....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interview with former Breakfast presenter Paul Henry – questioned Mr Henry on his controversial remarks about the Chief Minister of Delhi – comments about the Chief Minister were re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on Paul Henry and his perspective on the various controversies in which he was involved – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – Paul Henry’s comments did not extend to a section of the community – interviewer challenged his views – interview did not encourage discrimination or denigration of Indian people – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments about the Chief Minister revisited in current affairs context – interview would not have…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for The Jono Project – contained brief silhouette image of a woman bouncing up and down apparently having sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming), and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – image was fleeting, dark and relatively indistinct – promo did not contain any AO material – promo appropriately classified PGR and screened during Dr Phil – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] At approximately 1. 30pm during Dr Phil, broadcast on TV3 on 22 and 23 September 2011, a promo for The Jono Project was shown, which contained a brief silhouette image of a woman bouncing up and down, apparently having sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item featured interview with two members of the band Linkin Park who used coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – inclusion of the language was gratuitous and deliberately provocative – no warning given – research supports likelihood of viewers being offended – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 just before 11pm on 15 October 2007, discussed the international success of American band, Linkin Park, and included an interview with two of the band members. At the beginning of the interview, one member said “Fuck you! ” in response to the interviewer welcoming them to New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on the cats of Zion Wildlife Garden in Whangarei and the organisation’s desire to reverse declawing operations on some of their cats – included comments about former manager Craig Busch in relation to the decision to declaw the cats – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – zoo consultant’s comments were opinion – statement that Mr Busch convinced authorities had a reasonable basis – complainant did not provide evidence to disprove statements about inbreeding or limping tiger – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Busch invited to participate – item included a response from Mr Busch – broadcaster dealt with Mr Busch and ZWG fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Home and Away – programme classified G and broadcast at 5. 30pm contained storyline involving the date rape of a teenage girl – allegedly in breach of responsible programming, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – episode was unsuitable for unsupervised child viewers and incorrectly classified G – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Home and Away, an Australian soap opera, included a storyline that involved the date rape of a teenage girl. The episode was classified G and broadcast on TV3 at 5. 30pm on 11 April 2013. [2] David Simpson made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the episode was “highly offensive” and that themes of rape and HIV were inappropriate in a G-rated programme....

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....