Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – comment included a statement that the Green Party was the party of square dancers – complainant objected to square dancers being associated with the Green Party – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated square dancersFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant to complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – square dancers not a “section of the community” to which the guideline applies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 6 June 2006 at approximately 7....

ComplaintPlato’s Cave – promo at 4. 00pm – reference to sexual activity – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsPrinciple 1 Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Principle 7 Guideline 7b – audience research indicates minimal child audience – withdrawn This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the forthcoming Sunday drama, Plato’s Cave, was broadcast on National Radio at 4. 05pm on Thursday 20 September 2002. The promo included a request for a man to undress and to prepare for sex. [2] Jacqueline Grenfell complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of the promo at that time was offensive and unsuitable for children. [3] In response, RNZ acknowledged that the promo was challenging but argued that, on balance, it did not breach the standards....

Complaint Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club – clips of violent behaviour – breach of good taste – threatened standards of law and order – racist – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children – excessive violence – Prime upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspects upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings (1) action taken on Standards 2, 7 and 10 – action taken insufficient – uphold(2) Standard 1 – context – upholdStandard 6 – not unfair to South American Indians – no upholdStandard 9 – unsuitable for child viewers – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 October 2002....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male nudity – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on teenagers FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 23 April 2002 at 9. 40pm on TV One included a scene with a full frontal view of a naked man. [2] Graham Jacobsen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was too explicit, was not excused by the broadcast of a warning, and breached standards relating to teenager’s viewing interests....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Martin Crump Late Night Live – stand-in host encouraged running over possums – complainant phoned the show and disagreed with the host – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and fairness standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – talkback is a robust forum – host’s comments were “tongue-in-cheek” and not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not Authority’s role to determine whether deliberately running over possums is a crime – two callers gave the view that it was irresponsible – host discouraged dangerous driving – broadcast did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was allowed more than two minutes to air his views – callers who disagree with a talkback host’s…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-011:Town and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-011 PDF499. 97 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on The Paul Henry Show featured the two presenters discussing recent law changes in Russia that mean it is now illegal to misrepresent Russia’s involvement in World War II, and that people would be fined for swearing on television, in theatre or in films. Mr Henry gave examples of Russian swearwords. There was also a discussion about ‘butt plugs’ made in the likeness of Vladimir Putin and of Paul Henry. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the language, the references to Russia’s involvement in the war, and the discussion about ‘butt plugs’ were offensive. The segment was on late at night and targeted at adults, it was intended to be light-hearted and was consistent with expectations of the show and of Paul Henry....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Vote 2014 which covered the results of the 2014 general election, used the terms 'jeez', 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus' as exclamations. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of these terms was offensive and inappropriate. The Authority has consistently recognised that the colloquial use of variations of 'Jesus' as an exclamation to express irritation, dismay or surprise is increasingly common and widely accepted. The use of the words in this context, during live coverage of an important political event, did not threaten standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During Vote 2014, comprising five hours of live coverage of the results of the 2014 general election, one of the hosts used the terms 'jeez' and 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus'....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Jono and Ben showed a parody of the Biblical event the Last Supper, in which the 'disciples' complained that 'Jesus' brought bread to dinner when 'Simon' and 'Paul' were 'gluten-free'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the promo was offensive to Christians. Light-hearted satire of religious figures is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression. This particular skit was not malicious and did not threaten norms of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] A promo for Jono and Ben showed a parody of the Biblical event the Last Supper, in which the 'disciples' complained that 'Jesus' brought bread to dinner when 'Simon' and 'Paul' were 'gluten-free'. [2] Lois Durward complained that the promo was offensive to Christians, especially as it was shown during the week before Easter....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensiveSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Broadcasting Standards Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of 7 Days, in which a panellist said an Australian Santa would say ‘G’day cunts’, breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that the language was coarse and may have offended some viewers. However, taking into account relevant contextual factors including the nature of the programme, which is targeted at adults, audience expectations, the Adults Only classification, the warning for ‘bad’ language at the beginning of the programme, and the time of broadcast, the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

In an episode of The Sean Plunket Working Group, one of the presenters commented ‘fuck this is good radio’ before the commercial break. A complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard was upheld by the broadcaster in the first instance. The Authority1 did not uphold a complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient to remedy the breach, considering the word was not intended to be aired, and the broadcaster upheld the complaint in the first instance, apologising for the mistake. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the references to camps in the broadcast breached the standard as they were made in connection with quarantine management, and did not carry the ‘prison camp’ connotations suggested by the complainant. Not upheld: Good taste and decency (including action taken)...

The Authority declined to determine three complaints as they did not raise clear concerns capable of being addressed by the complaints process. Decline to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Alcohol, Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that use of the term ‘wanker’ was inappropriate and offensive in breach of the good taste and decency standard. Taking into account the relevant contextual factors, the use of the term was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Shortland Street that included scenes of a man injecting another against his will, removing one of his organs, then drinking alcohol from a glass with a bloodied glove. In the context, including the programme’s nature, classification and intended audience, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress, or undue harm to child viewers. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that language used in Million Dollar Listing LA breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The programme was rated G and broadcast at 2. 20pm on a Sunday. In the context, and given most of the words were censored and did not appear until the final five minutes of the 55-minute programme, overall it was unlikely to likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. It was also unlikely to alarm or distress any children who were watching. The audible words did not go beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a promo for Taranaki Hard. The Authority found the item was within audience expectations for a promo shown during an unclassified news programme. It did not actively promote or glamorise illegal behaviour nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence or cause harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...