Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-018 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDDIE HAYES of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster RADIO OTAGO LTD TRADING AS 93 FM, HASTINGS J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MAVIS FLOWERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint Radio Hauraki breakfast programme – Matthew Ridge had AAA credit rating – "Arrogant Angry Arsehole" – derogatory and offensive FindingsPrinciple 1 – context – no uphold Principle 5 – referred to named person – unfair – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Former international rugby league player and current television host, Matthew Ridge, was referred to during the breakfast programme broadcast on Radio Hauraki on 26 November 2002. In view of the news report that Mr Ridge was again facing driving related charges, the hosts said that he had a new credit rating, AAA, for "Arrogant Angry Arsehole". [2] Stephen Peat complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was derogatory and the language was offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Horace in Slow Motion – showed cartoon pig ‘picking his nose and eating it’ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Horace in Slow Motion, a 45-second cartoon about Horace the pig, showed Horace ‘picking his nose and eating it’. The footage was accompanied by audio of children saying, “Ewww, you’re gross, Horace. ” The short programme was classified G (General) and broadcast at 5pm on Tuesday 18 June 2013 on TV2. [2] Jason Walker made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that it was “unacceptable [in] today’s society to pick you[r] nose and eat it”....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-014:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-014 PDF369. 17 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Saturday Morning featured a segment in which presenter Kim Hill interviewed former MP and spokesperson for lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, Dr Don Brash, about the use of te reo Māori in New Zealand, specifically in RNZ broadcasting, without translation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Dr Brash challenging and critical questions, Dr Brash had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view, and listeners would not have been left misinformed with regard to Dr Brash’s position. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Dr Brash’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Dr Brash being treated unfairly....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-176 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary The programme Police, broadcast weekly on TV2, depicts aspects of police work, including the apprehension of criminals. Episodes broadcast on 30 April and 14 May 1998 at 8. 00pm included angry exchanges where the word "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions. Mr Werder complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive and should not have been broadcast at a time when children were watching television. In his view, the warning preceding the programmes was inadequate and did not absolve the broadcaster of its responsibility to be mindful of children. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Police was a documentary about actual police work. It was all too common, it noted, that police encountered abusive people who gave vent to their feelings by using foul language....

Summary A stripper exposed her breasts in a scene during a strip show in Heartbeat broadcast on TV One on 18 November 1998 at 2. 10pm. Ms Hutchings complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the content was inappropriate in a programme which had been classified PGR and was broadcast during the afternoon. She argued that it was unsuitable viewing for children, and that it perpetuated stereotypical views about women, thus breaching several broadcasting standards. In its response, TVNZ acknowledged that the material was more suited to an adult audience, but maintained that it was not unsuitable for younger viewers when under the guidance of an adult. It did not consider it had been incorrectly classified. Further, TVNZ argued, the content did not breach any broadcasting standards, given its context in a drama clearly classified as PGR. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint....

SummaryA segment on consumer rights relating to boundary fences was included in Target broadcast on TV3 on 29 August 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. A brief shot of a man’s buttocks was seen in a skit performed by two actors. Dawn Shelford, on behalf of Preserving Communication Standards Trust Inc, complained that she and the members of her group found this segment objectionable. She said they did not consider it appropriate for this segment to have been included in a consumer rights programme as it was "a kind of titillation based on public indecency". TV3 responded that the 7-second view of the actor’s bare bottom was in its view acceptable in the context. It did not agree that the scene was objectionable and exceeded community standards of decency. It declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Erin Simpson Show – lyrics of song performed by New Zealand band on the show – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – lyrics were oblique – teenagers more likely to be watching than young children – acceptable in G programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – complainant did not identify any inaccurate statements – not likely to have alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Erin Simpson Show, a programme aimed at teenagers and containing a mixture of interviews, band performances, and information about the latest games, technology, TV and movies, was broadcast at 4. 30pm on TV2 on Tuesday 5 May....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintA viewer of Outrageous Fortune complained about the "graphic naked sex acts", which were "bordering on pornography", and the line "I want your cock in me now", delivered by one of the female characters. The viewer said the programme breached standards of good taste and decency and was demeaning to women. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVWorks argued that viewers expected material broadcast at 9. 30pm to be "mature in nature". It said that the sex scenes and language were appropriate for the Adults Only (AO) classification, and maintained that none of the sex scenes contained explicit nudity. The broadcaster said Outrageous Fortune often contained storylines revolving around sexual themes and there was considerable audience expectation of the type of material shown in the programme....

Summary An interview with a bisexual author of erotic books was included in 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 31 October 1999 between 7. 30–8. 30pm. The woman described herself as "an amateur sexologist" and explained how she had become an expert on the subject of erotica. Mr Hausmann complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the material was pornographic, breached the good taste standard and was unsuitable to be shown at a time when younger viewers could be watching. He also maintained that the item lacked balance because it did not show the serious downside of what he termed sexual addiction. TVNZ responded that the programme had profiled a New Zealand woman who had been approached by a publisher to produce a work on female erotica. It suggested that the complainant had made an unfair assumption by concluding that the woman had a sexual addiction....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A – host interviewed Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions and John Barnett from South Pacific Pictures about controversy surrounding production of the film The Hobbit in New Zealand – host’s approach towards Ms Kelly allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s approach aggressive but did not extend to personal attack against Ms Kelly – Ms Kelly should have expected to be interviewed robustly about The Hobbit dispute – not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – Ms Kelly given adequate opportunity to present the union’s viewpoint – significant perspectives on the topic presented within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host described Minister of Health as a chicken and derelict in her duty – offensive and denigrating FindingsPrinciple 1a – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7a – comments acceptable on talkback – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Minister of Health was criticised for not going to Christchurch to try to settle a threatened nurses strike there. The comments were made by the host (Bill Ralston) on the talkback station, Radio Pacific, between 11. 00am–2. 00pm on 30 November 2001. [2] David Stott complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments, which included a description of the Minister as a "woof" and "chicken", were insulting, denigrating and in poor taste. [3] As Mr Stott did not receive a response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jeremy Wells' 'Like Mike' skit on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated, in which he parodied radio and television presenter Mike Hosking, Mr Wells discussed the flag debate and his admiration for John Key. Imitating Mr Hosking's voice he said, 'I was pleasuring myself watching John Key on Parliament TV the other day, and, just when things were coming to a climax, they cut to [Labour leader Andrew] Little and I lost thickness immediately'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comment breached standards of good taste and decency. The item was clearly satirical and intended to be humorous, and was consistent with audience expectations of Mr Wells, Mr Hosking, the programme and the radio station. The comments were inexplicit and in the nature of innuendo, and would have gone over the heads of most children....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on bullying incident at Ruawai College, told from the perspective of the victim’s mother – victim’s mother expressed frustration at the school because she was not informed of the incident until a couple of days after it occurred – contained repeated footage of the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not create an unfairly negative impression of the school and staff members – school was provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and the Principal adequately presented the school’s position – item did not create an unfair impression about the timing or duration of the incident – reference to letter was not unfair – footage of police was due to an oversight – school and staff members treated fairly and overall…...