Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referring to phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times as an exclamation when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language breached broadcasting standards. It would not have offended a significant number of viewers or adversely affected any children who might have been watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referencing phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup – for example, ‘by God they are playing well’. [2] Craig Davie complained that Mr Henry used ‘foul language’ and was ‘taking the lord’s name in vain’, which was offensive and unsuitable for children....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – scene implied killing of cat with a razor – character was continuously splattered with blood as he sliced the cat off-screen and cat squealed – character stated, “. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – contained sexual content and innuendo – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content was subtle and inexplicit – nature of sexual innuendo would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldStandard 8 (responsible programming) – the episode was correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An episode of the cartoon comedy Family Guy was broadcast on FOUR at 7. 30pm on Thursday 20 October 2011....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-012 Dated the 8th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-018 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUE WHITE of Lake Hawea Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-071 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LAWRIE MALATIOS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintStrippers – sensationalist – voyeuristic – offensive – unsuitable for children and young teenagers FindingsStandard 1, Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9, Guideline 9a – not children’s normal viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Strippers is a British documentary series which followed a small group of women for three months and examined female striptease. One episode was broadcast at 9. 30pm on TV2 on 10 September 2002. [2] Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained many strip scenes and breached the standard relating to the observance of good taste and decency. The warning which preceded the broadcast, he said, would not stop children and young teenagers watching the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 34/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOANNE DACZO of Pirongia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News update, broadcast during the PGR-rated movie Night at the Museum 2, featured security footage of a man who walked into a petrol station with a metal rod lodged in his head. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the update screened graphic and disturbing violent footage, without a warning, which would have upset children. This was a newsworthy story and the footage was relatively inexplicit. It was reasonable to expect that child viewers would have been supervised by adults, given the movie was rated PGR, and children were unlikely to be unduly alarmed or disturbed in this context. Not Upheld: Children's Interests Introduction [1] A 3 News update, broadcast at 7....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-002 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN FOWLIE of Paeroa Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q+A – panel discussion about immigration policy in New Zealand – one panellist stated that meeting immigration criteria was not an easy process and included a test for syphilis – host responded “How did the test turn out? I’m sorry! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – question was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – unaccompanied children unlikely to watch news programmes – host’s question would have gone over the heads of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintKeeping Secrets – documentary – strip club - nudity – warning insufficient – offensive behaviour – not mindful of children Findings(1) Standard G2 – warning – 9. 30pm – AO – nudity not focus – no full frontal nudity – no uphold (2) Standard G12 – 9. 30pm not "normally accepted" children’s viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The documentary Keeping Secrets was broadcast on TV3 on 12 January 2000 at 9. 30pm. The documentary was about the opening of a second "Secrets" table dancing club in London. Kristian Harang complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast showed "strip club" scenes and nudity. He contended that the content transgressed broadcasting standards relating to good taste and decency and the protection of children....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – episode in which the character “Katy” attempted suicide – allegedly put children at risk FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – appropriately considered by broadcaster through programme classification, time of broadcast, warning, and restrained nature of portrayal – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Coronation Street, which included the depiction of a suicide attempt by the diabetic character “Katy”, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 16 February 2006. Coronation Street is a fictional drama series set in Northern England and, earlier in the storyline, “Katy” had murdered her father. The sequences which featured “Katy” in the episode complained about were interspersed with sequences which dealt with a range of other storylines, and showed her consuming large amounts of sugar, and destroying her diabetes medication....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-063 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B L SINCLAIR of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Wolf Creek – horror film contained drugging, sexual violence, torture and murder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 10 (violence) – extremely disturbing violence – inadequate classification and warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – outside children’s normally accepted viewing times – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Wolf Creek, an Australian horror film, was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Tuesday 11 March 2007. In the film, two women, Lizzy and Kristy, and their friend, Ben, travelled together to visit the meteorite crater at Wolf Creek National Park. When they returned from the crater, they discovered their car would not go....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about file sharing software – showed images from a snuff movie three times during short item – woman seen begging not to be filmed with a gun held to her head – gunshot heard on one occasion but with no image – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standard 1, spoke to news staff and broadcast on-air apology – complainants dissatisfied with decision and action taken FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law or glamorise the criminal activity shown – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – irrespective of whether the snuff movie was real or fake, no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unable to determine whether woman treated fairly – decline…...