Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of bare breasts and buttocks, and brief frontal shots of two naked women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of naked women not sexualised or intended to titillate – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – programme was appropriately classified PGR – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 August 2007, contained video footage of a number of women featuring bare breasts, buttocks and two brief full frontal shots of naked women....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – language – “fuck you” – allegedly offensive – warning requiredFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – warning not necessary – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Spooks is a BBC drama series built around the activities of a fictional counter-terrorism unit attached to MI5. MI5 is the government agency responsible for internal security. In an episode beginning at 9. 30pm broadcast on TV One on 24 February 2004, one character said to another “fuck you”. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive and the programme should have been preceded with a warning. Standards [3] TVNZ assessed the complaint under Standard 1 and Guidelines 1a and 1b of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

Complaint3 News – item on initiation ceremony at girl’s school – violence – offensive – not in public interest – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 2 and Guideline 2d – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – interests of children considered – no uphold Standard 10 and Guideline10a – violence justified in context of item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on 3 News broadcast by TV3 between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 8 May 2003, depicted a violent initiation ceremony, referred to as "hazing", at a girls’ school in the United States....

Summary The film Heat was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 3 January 1999. Mr Nicholls complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, about the standard of language used in the film. He objected to the excessive use of "fuck", "fucking", and associated words, he wrote, because it led to their normalisation. He argued that the offending words could have been beeped out. The film was shown in holiday time, he said, and swear words should not be accepted on prime family time television. TVNZ responded that the film started at 8. 30pm which was adult programming time, it was clearly rated AO, indicating that it was unsuitable for children, and it was preceded by a specific warning about its violence and language. It said the warning was delivered visually and verbally....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – story explored the craze surrounding imitations of Jackass movies involving dangerous stunts and an internet site that was profiting from it – footage of stunts shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and law and order standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – shocking footage was appropriate given the focus of the programme – warning was adequate – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item was a cautionary tale – did not encourage or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – cartoon involving “King Dick” who ejaculated onto the face of a Chinese character – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – cartoon satirised anti-Asian views of former Prime Minister – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history. In an episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 20 July 2008, the programme reviewed past Prime Ministers of New Zealand, including Robert Muldoon and Michael Savage, also mentioning Helen Clark (the then Prime Minister) and John Key (the National Party leader)....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-120 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RACHEL MEDUSA of Dunedin Broadcaster RADIO ONE 91 FM Dunedin S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 5/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by Dr GRAEME BISHOP of Picton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

SummaryAccording to the complainant, a Radio Pacific talkback host referred to a caller as a "stupid old cow" at around 10. 35pm on 26 September 1999. The complainant reported that, later the same evening at around 11. 45pm, the same host talked about a Coronation Street episode and said a male character was "knocking off" two female characters. The complainant also reported that the host frequently used the expression "My God". Lillian Cannell complained to Radio Pacific, now managed by The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used by the host was offensive, and that his use of "blasphemy" was also quite unacceptable. The broadcaster responded that the language used by the host was strong in nature, but was in "the slang category" and did not contravene broadcasting standards....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989North – host used the phrase “buggered it” – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – tenth occasion that the complainant has complained about the word “bugger” – complaint vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of North, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Sunday 27 March 2011, the presenter took a boat trip to Kawau Island. Speaking to the boat’s captain about the history of the island, the presenter said, “I’ve never understood Kawau. It’s always seemed to me that [Governor Sir George Grey] buggered it, you know? All sorts of animals and plants. . ....

ComplaintChannel Z – competition about method of waking up another person – broadcast of male competitor who apparently woke female flatmate with her vibrator – serious criminal offence – offensive behaviourFindingsPrinciple 1 – offensive behaviour described – telephone call recorded – tape reviewed and approved for broadcast – serious error of judgment – upholdOrderBroadcast of approved statement Costs of $2,000 to CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Novel ways of waking a person up were the subject of a competition run on Channel Z. At about 7. 30am on 14 December 2001, Channel Z broadcast a tape of a male competitor waking up a female flatmate in her bedroom by using her vibrator. The broadcast included her invective directed at the competitor when she awoke....

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-007:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-007 PDF322. 28 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up at 7 item – item on “schoolies” week in Queensland, Australia – item included scenes of alcohol consumption, “mooning” and partying – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item was newsworthy – mildly offensive conduct in this context did not amount to a breach of the standard – Not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up at 7, shown on TV One at 7pm on 6 December 2004, reported on “schoolies” week in Queensland, and showed newly graduated high school students gathering at beach resorts on the Gold Coast for a week of celebrations. Complaint [2] Donald McDonald complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about recent release of controversial Barbie doll – panellist suggested there was a market in the Muslim world for “terrorist Barbie”, and in response the host suggested “suicide bomber Barbie” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists were offering commentary and opinion in a satirical manner, making the point that the marketers of Barbie dolls were smart to release controversial Barbies – comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Muslims as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were light-hearted and intended to be satirical/a joke – most viewers would not have been offended or distressed by the comments taking into account the context – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible…...