Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Desperate Housewives – promo – shown at 8. 00pm during G-rated NZ Idol – sexual images and dialogue – promo allegedly unsuitable for screening during G-rated host programme and allegedly in breach of children’s interestsFindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – majority of view that promo’s rating should have been PGR – AO according to minority – screened during G-rated host programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – material in promo discreet – sufficiently acknowledged children’s interests – minority – promo should have been rated AO – unsuitable for children – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Desperate Housewives was broadcast on TV2 at about 8. 00pm on 22 August 2005. It was screened during the G-rated programme NZ Idol. The promo was rated G by the broadcaster....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Mike Yardley Mornings – Newstalk ZB – discussion about financial problems at Christchurch Hospital – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – balanced discussion in talkback context – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one comment about acute demand provision inaccurate – upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – balanced discussion in talkback context – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 29 April 2004, Newstalk ZB talkback host Mike Yardley introduced the Mike Yardley Mornings show with a discussion about financial problems at Christchurch hospital....

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practiceFindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryBrent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits Invercargill had failed to cover the activities of an Invercargill businessman who had been charged with fraud. He contended that in this omission the broadcaster had failed to show balance and had used deceptive programming practice in its broadcasts during the period of newsworthiness, notably between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, responded for both stations that broadcasting standards were not breached as the story in question had not been broadcast. Dissatisfied with TRN’s response, Mr Procter referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved a man with extensive burn injuries seeking revenge on his victims by burning them alive – showed victims being covered in petrol and set on fire – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and violence FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – high degree of explicit violence and disturbing themes constituted strong adult material that warranted an AO 9. 30pm classification and later time of broadcast – programme incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – episode contained explicit violence – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – level of violence in 8. 30pm broadcast was unacceptable in context, despite AO classification – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintsOne News – Late Edition – same item – person with cholesterol level of 43 – described as walking time-bomb – healthy level said to be between 3 and 5 – controversial – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – not controversial issue – no uphold Standard G6 – not controversial issue – no uphold Standard G14 – comment in passing on healthy level – no uphold Standard G16 – comment encouraged concern but not unnecessarily alarmist – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A man with a high level of cholesterol was interviewed on One News, broadcast between 6. 00 and 7. 00pm on TV One on 28 December 2001. The item described the man with a level of 43 as a "walking time-bomb", and the "healthy" level was said to be "between three and five"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-029:O'Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-029 PDF1. 33 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-026:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-026 PDF306. 1 KB...

SummaryPreparations were proceeding for an early election in April 1999, according to the promo for news items broadcast on TV One at about 9. 30pm on 19 November 1998. In the item on Tonight it was reported that preparations were under way for the possibility of an early election. Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo was an inaccurate summary of the item to follow, as it failed to clarify that the preparations were being made only on the basis that there was a possibility of an early election. She argued that the promo was inaccurate, unreliable and a distortion of the item which followed. TVNZ responded that both the promo and the item were accurate in reporting that in the Electoral Office, planning was under way for an early election....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

Complaint Coca-Cola Chart Show and Coca-Cola RTR Countdown – music videos – sexual themes offensive – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 7, Guideline 7a – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a and 9d – no disturbing material – no uphold; Guidelines 9c and 9i – irrelevant – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Music videos Kiss Kiss, Hot in Herre and Are You In? were broadcast on TV2’s Coca-Cola RTR Countdown at 6. 00pm on 20 July 2002 and on the Coca-Cola Chart Show at 10. 00am on 21 July 2002. [2] Tina Swenson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the music videos were sexually explicit, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children....

ComplaintTalkback – therapeutic remedy – editorial independence – advertorial – ethical issues FindingsPrinciple 4 – no uphold Principle 7 – host agreed with caller – reference to mainstream medical advice not necessarily required in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A caller, who said her granddaughter had open weeping sores, asked the host on Radio Pacific for his views on the efficacy of colloidal silver and Celtic sea salt in treating her condition. The call was broadcast on 21 February 2000 at about 4. 10am on Radio Pacific. Christopher Ingram complained to The RadioWorks Ltd that the broadcast was not balanced and was irresponsible in not advising the caller to seek medical advice. In addition he expressed his concern about the sponsorship of the programme by a company which made alternative remedies....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter referred to Tip Top ice cream competition and informed viewers how to enter – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – segment did not threaten objectives behind “responsible programming” – promotions of this nature are now commonplace – Broadcasting Act and standards as written do not contemplate this type of segment or give authority to address these issues – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching, in the manner envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During a segment on Breakfast, the presenter referred to a ‘Feel Tip Top Giveaway’ competition....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike & Dom Show – contained discussion about a controversial tweet by one of the hosts in which he said, “Girls rapping....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings (1) 5 August broadcast – no uphold(2) 6 August broadcast – no uphold (3) 7 August broadcast – no uphold (4) 10 August broadcast – reference to wanking unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold (5) 11 August broadcast – discussion with child character about pornography – unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold(6) 21 August broadcast – gratuitous use of "fuck" – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7b – unsuitable for children – uphold; discussion about plasticine penis – no uphold; mocking of homosexuals – Principle 1 – uphold;…...

ComplaintThe Rock – Morning Rumble – competition – the worst things that had ever happened to you when you’ve been drinking – story about drunk youth – stripped – drawn on – urinated over – crutch pushed into rectum – photos taken – person embarrassed and later left school – encourages abuse FindingsPrinciple 1 – story offensive – uphold Principle 7 guideline 7b – 7. 15–8. 15am normally accepted listening time for children – uphold OrderCosts of $2,500 to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A competition entitled "The worst things that have ever happened to you when you’ve been drinking" was run on The Rock between 7. 15–8. 15am on 31 July 2001....

SummaryPromos for Catherine the Great were shown prior to its broadcast on 7 February 1999 beginning at 8. 30pm. The promos contained some nudity and sex scenes, as did the programme itself. Boyd Henderson of Oxford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, that the sex scenes in the trailers and the programme itself breached the good taste and decency standard. As a general observation, he also complained that the broadcaster failed to provide warnings as to the explicit content of programmes and promos. Many New Zealanders, he said, were like him and objected to watching such material. As TVNZ failed to respond to Mr Henderson’s complaint, he referred it to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....