Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the song Why Won’t You Give Me Your Love breached broadcasting standards. The complaint was that the song lyrics described an ‘intention to stalk, kidnap, imprison and rape’ and the song was inappropriate to broadcast in the afternoon. The Authority determined that the song’s satirical nature and upbeat style reduced the potential for the darker tone of the lyrics to cause harm. The song was within audience expectations for the eclectic music selection of the host programme, Matinee Idle and, taking into account the context of the broadcast, the lyrics did not undermine widely shared community standards and would not have unduly harmed child listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Sports Tonight – words “tough” and “disconnect” allegedly used by presenters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and privacy Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order) and 3 (privacy) – adequate response from broadcaster – use of the words did not threaten broadcasting standards in any way – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Friday 25 September 2009. Sports Tonight was broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 30 September 2009....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), featuring cage fighting, was broadcast on SKY Sport. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the sport was too violent and inappropriate for broadcast at 5pm. This was a legitimate sport, broadcast on a niche channel dedicated to sport, and was appropriately classified M, indicating it was suitable for mature audiences aged 16 and over. Filtering technology allowed parents to block the content if they wished. Not Upheld: Children, Violence, Law and OrderIntroduction[1] An Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) tournament, featuring cage fighting, was broadcast at 5pm on a SKY Sport channel, on Monday 21 April 2014. It was classified M (suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over)....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

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…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-083:Jones and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-083 PDF2. 47 MB...

ComplaintHolmes – apology from Mr Holmes for comments he made about UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Newstalk ZB – apology said to be unbalanced, inaccurate and breached requirements for law and order Findings Standard 2 – not applicable – decline to determine Standard 4 – personal statement – balance not an issue – decline to determine Standard 5 – no inaccuracy – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Paul Holmes, the host of Holmes broadcast on TV One on weekdays at 7. 00pm, made a personal statement on Holmes on 29 September 2003 about some comments he had made on Newstalk ZB. Among some other comments made on Newstalk ZB, he had described the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a “cheeky darkie”. His comments had received extensive media coverage....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989X105FM – hosts were talking to a man as he attempted to enter the grounds of Premier House where a barbeque for Prince William was about to take place – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At around 7pm on X105FM on 18 January 2010, one of the station’s employees, Warwick Slow, gained entry to Premier House by jumping over the fence, ahead of a barbecue for Prince William....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – footage of an assault on a man charged with child abuse – described as “street justice” – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – crime was not endorsed or glamorised – “street justice” a colloquialism – broadcaster did not condone assault – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 1 April 2005 detailed the lifting of name suppression in a prominent child abuse case. The piece contained footage of an assault on the accused that had screened previously when the name suppression order was still in effect. The voiceover stated: Last week when he appeared in court it was street justice being meted out on [the accused]....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-052 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – "The Naked Breast" – promo – masking of breasts – untruthful – discriminatory – deceptive – corrupts children FindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G5 – not applicable Standard G7 – not applicable Standard G12 – no evidence of corruption – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A promo for the Inside New Zealand documentary "The Naked Breast" was screened on TV3 during the evening of 10 September 2000. Breasts were masked by means of a design graphic as the voiceover described some of the programme’s content. John Lowe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the breasts in the promo sent a message that they were a prohibited part of the body. He said that the masking obscured the truth, was discriminatory and therefore illegal, was deceptive and corrupted children....

Complaint3 News – land owners around Lake Ida put up trespass notices and take control of skating on the lake – Lake Ida Winter Sports Association accompanied by film crew breach trespass order – disrespect of law and breach of privacy. FindingsStandard G5 – disrespect for the law not encouraged – no uphold Privacy Principles – do not apply to companies – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A disagreement about the control of ice skating on Lake Ida between the Lake Ida Sports Association and the surrounding landowners was covered in a news item. The item, broadcast on 3 News on 26 July 2001 beginning at 6. 00pm, included footage of a trespass notice....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-169:Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-169 PDF406. 94 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-012:Tregurtha and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-012 PDF394. 96 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

SummaryA woman caller was advised by a programme host on Radio Pacific to lie to the Accident Compensation Corporation in order to obtain a benefit she was not legally entitled to. The broadcast was at about 10. 00pm on 25 September 1999. V P McGlone complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, about the broadcast. As he did not receive a response from the broadcaster within the statutory 20 working days, Mr McGlone referred the complaint to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. When it responded to the Authority, the broadcaster advised that it had no record of having received the complaint. It advised that it had now upheld the complaint as breaching the requirement to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Cruise FM – host interviewed a member of the local district council and made comments that were critical of, and threatening towards, other council members – host also made comments about a rival radio station and, by implication, a staff member there – news item made claims about Deputy Mayor – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host made comments that were personally abusive and threatening – Mayor Neil Sinclair, Deputy Mayor Jenny Shattock, named councillor, Classic Hits and its staff treated unfairly – host’s comments about other council members and staff were brief, general criticisms mainly related to professional capacity and as such they were not treated unfairly – host abused his position by using the airwaves to discredit council members and staff at…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rude Tube – series featured viral video clips from the internet – “Animal Madness” episode included a clip of a man taking “an unscheduled toilet break” in a paddock, and being chased by a donkey apparently attempting to mate with him – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – most viewers would not have been offended – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not amount to “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....