Search Rapua

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintIn a segment of Balls of Steel called "Pain Men", two men devise various methods of inflicting pain on each other. In this programme, one of the men applied an electric belt sander twice to the other man's bare buttocks. The injured man then had a nail hammered through the skin between his thumb and forefinger and into a block of wood. A viewer complained that the programme set a dangerous and stupid example, and breached standards of good taste and decency, law and order, and children's interests. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Balls of Steel was a comedy/entertainment programme that contained some sequences which created comedy out of the most distasteful acts. It pointed out that the programme was rated Adults Only, screened at 9. 30pm, and carried a warning that it contained scenes "which may disturb"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – item featured a skit in which an actor pretending to be a TV presenter interviewed “Ray”, the stingray that killed prominent Australian Steve Irwin – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – skit clearly satirical – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme Facelift, broadcast on TV One at 10. 10pm on 10 September 2007, featured a skit of the Campbell Live show in which an actor pretending to be a TV presenter interviewed “Ray”, the stingray that killed prominent Australian Steve Irwin. During the skit, the actor playing the stingray discussed how he had not meant to kill Mr Irwin, and coughed up a piece of khaki clothing (Mr Irwin’s regular attire)....

Complaint under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the Teachers Council registering people with convictions – referred to the case of a high school teacher who had been “convicted of supplying P to four students” – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 2 – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while item was ambiguous as to whether Mr Arthur supplied P to his own students, it was inaccurate to state that he supplied P to students – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to state that Mr Arthur supplied P to students – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-110 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN MOIR of Dunedin TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary The film Primal Fear was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 July 1999. It concerned the trial of a young man accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop. Aaron Authier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film was an attack on Christianity. He said he objected to the blasphemous language used and the manner in which Catholic clergy had been represented in the film. In his view, it should have been preceded with a warning about its content. TVNZ responded by noting that the film was classified as AO and was screened during AO time. Furthermore, it was preceded by a warning which emphasised that it was intended for adult audiences. To the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and misrepresented the clergy, TVNZ responded by reminding the complainant that the film was a work of fiction....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coke Countdown – music video – “Toxic” by Britney Spears – allegedly bad taste and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Guidelines 9a and 9d – PGR viewing time – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The music video “Toxic” by Britney Spears was broadcast on Coke Countdown on TV2 at 9. 00am on 22 February 2004. Complaint [2] Rick and Suzanne Stancombe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the music video was in “poor taste” and that “children should not be subjected to this sort of indecency”....

ComplaintTV One – coverage of Olympic Games opening ceremony advertised as being live – untruthful and inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – implication perhaps misleading – no incorrect facts broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The Olympic Games Opening Ceremony was broadcast on TV One on the evening of 14 September 2000. Advertising breaks were included during the programme. Bryan Bluck complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the extensive advertising prior to the opening of the Olympic Games implied that the broadcast would be live. In fact, he said, after the first advertising break, it was a delayed telecast. He emphasised that his complaint was not that the programme contained advertising, but that the promotions had implied it would be a direct broadcast rather than a delayed one....

Summary In a review of events surrounding the Erebus crash, it was reported that the then CEO of Air New Zealand had told a senior pilot "I’ll cut your f-ing balls off". The remark was quoted in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on 28 November 1999 at 7. 30pm, the 20th anniversary of the crash of the Air New Zealand plane in the Antarctic. Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive, unacceptable and entirely unnecessary, particularly in a programme which dealt with a subject still painful for the friends and relatives of those killed. TVNZ emphasised the context in which the remark was made and suggested the comment reflected the bitterness and unresolved questions arising from the disaster. In its view, the phrase spoke volumes about the emotions aroused by the debate....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – New Zealand Labour Party Opening Address included discussion about Capital Gains Tax – showed list of countries entitled “OECD countries with some form of tax capital” which included Singapore – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air TV Code – inclusion of Singapore in list graphic was not a material point of fact – Singapore was not referred to verbally – broadcaster and the Labour Party acknowledged that it was an error and it will not appear in future broadcasts – Opening Address not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters discussed Civil Defence emergency survival kits – presenter commented on what people should have in their kits, Mormons being prepared for disasters as part of their faith, and whether people should just have a gun and bullets and use them to take other people’s kits – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were inane banter that was not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 7 September 2010, the presenters, Paul Henry, Pippa Wetzell and Peter Williams, discussed Civil Defence emergency kits....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-047:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-047 PDF483. 07 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-042:Talbot and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-042 PDF695. 01 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-010:Burbridge and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-010 PDF356. 93 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary series Inconceivable followed the fertility struggles of eight New Zealand couples over the course of two years. During this episode, one of the couples went to the doctor for a blood test. Contact details on the test documentation were briefly shown, including the woman’s full name and her mobile number, and the couple’s home phone number and partial street address. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this breached the couple’s privacy. The broadcaster advised that the couple reviewed the episode prior to screening and gave their full and informed consent for it to be broadcast. The shot in question was very brief, such that many viewers would likely have overlooked the level of detail shown....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an item on 1News reporting on cuts to the public sector. The complainant considered the broadcast’s claim that public sector spending cuts were to help pay for the government’s tax cuts was inaccurate, unbalanced and was unfair to Minister of Finance Nicola Willis, as it fully attributed public sector funding reductions to paying for tax cuts. The Authority found no breach of the accuracy standard, noting the broadcast did not fully attribute public sector funding reductions to paying for tax cuts. It further found in a news story about the impact of the cuts, the broadcaster was not required to include reference to other reasons for better management of government funds, as well as other financial measures that would also help pay for tax cuts, as the complainant had submitted....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the second part of a two-part documentary, Leaving Neverland, concerning sexual abuse allegations made by two men against Michael Jackson. The Authority took into account the nature of the programme, which was clearly presented from the perspectives of the two men featured and included responses to these and similar allegations, from Michael Jackson and his lawyers. In this context, the Authority found: the broadcast would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress as contemplated under the good taste and decency standard; the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not address a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ for New Zealand viewers; the programme was unlikely to mislead viewers and did not breach the accuracy standard; and the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

In an episode of Seven Sharp, host, Hilary Barry, interviewed a woman with type one diabetes about an encounter she had with waitstaff at a restaurant when eating food brought from home. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the accuracy standard (by giving viewers the impression that kumara salad can treat hypoglycaemia). The Authority was satisfied that a reasonable viewer was not likely to be misled by the broadcast into thinking that kumara salad is a treatment for hypoglycaemia. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

A promotion for Off the Grid with Colin and Manu included a clip of Manu asking Colin to ‘stop slurping’ when he eats and saying, ‘My mum would have smacked you in the head, you know’. The complainant alleged the comment was a breach of the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. The Authority found the comment, in the context, was unlikely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience. The Authority also found it was unlikely to encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise engage in serious antisocial activity. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...