Search Rapua

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-028:Meyrick and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-028 PDF215. 88 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two items on Seven Sharp contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the items were inappropriate in a prime time news and current affairs slot. Both items were clearly intended to be humorous rather than titillating, and would not have been unduly offensive or unexpected for regular viewers, given the programme’s mix of serious news, banter and entertainment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] Two items on Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The first item, broadcast on 7 October 2013, included footage of a man’s YouTube parody of Miley Cyrus’ raunchy performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. The man was shown dancing provocatively around a toilet bowl wearing a bikini made out of glad-wrap....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-070:Boys and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-070 PDF256. 02 KB...

ComplaintFair Go – “Fair Go Ad Awards” – presenter lampooned margarine advertisement – sexual suggestions allegedly offensive and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 – sexual innuendo oblique and inexplicit – comedy – not upheld Standard 9 – not unsuitable for children in context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The annual “Fair Go Ad Awards” included a segment during which the presenter lampooned an advertisement for margarine, which had been nominated for “worst ad”. The episode of Fair Go was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 15 October 2003. [2] Geoff New complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the parodies contained sexually suggestive material which breached standards of good taste and decency and was unsuitable for children. [3] In response, TVNZ disagreed that the programme breached broadcasting standards....

Complaint American Beauty – film - numerous sexual references – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9c – broadcaster was mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The film American Beauty was screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. The film is about a bored middle-aged man who becomes "love-struck" with one of his daughter’s friends. His fantasies lead him to turn his life upside down. [2] Murray Baylis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sexual references and sexual messages in the film would be offensive to many New Zealanders, especially to people aged 12 – 16 years....

ComplaintFor Richer or Poorer – movie – "fuck off" – offensive language – insufficient warning FindingsStandard G2 – language not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G8 – classification and time of screening appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary For Richer or Poorer was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 29 April 2001. For Richer or Poorer is a comedy movie about a rich couple who hide among the Amish to avoid pursuit by the tax department. During one scene, the wife tells her husband to "fuck off". Ken and Jackie Francis complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that the language was offensive, and that the warning for "coarse" language which had preceded the broadcast had been insufficient....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ski FM – during 16 July broadcast presenter made comment about sucking diarrhoea out of someone’s bottom with a straw – during 18 July broadcast presenter made comment about drinking pig’s urine – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment about drinking pigs urine puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – comment about sucking diarrhoea out of someone’s bottom with a straw went well beyond what listeners would expect to hear on radio – comment would have offended a significant number of listeners – upheld OrderSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintPromo – The Mind of the Married Man – references to anal sex – offensive language FindingsStandard 1 and guideline 1a – context – borderline – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Mind of the Married Man was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 55pm on 13 February 2002. In a part of the episode during which a married couple argued about the state of their marriage, there was reference by the wife to anal sex, using terms such as "arse-fuck", "fuck me in the arse" and "deep in my arse". [2] Kerry Carter complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the dialogue, which she considered "lewd and offensive" and "only fit for a porn video". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Intrepid Journeys – dancing champion Brendon Cole visited Vanuatu – locals told him how to kill a chicken using a slingshot – he could not manage to hit it and eventually killed it with his hands – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme showed daily reality of a different culture and way of life – was clear that Mr Cole was upset about killing the chicken so viewers were not encouraged by the programme to kill animals in that manner – footage was not gratuitous in context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was correctly rated PGR – scene was signposted so parents could exercise discretion with regard to their children’s viewing – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic – interviewee and reporter used the term “nutters” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – “nutters” used to refer to person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – viewers would have understood intended meaning of “nutters” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-036:Wortelboer and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-036 PDF281. 68 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-025:White and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1990-025 PDF537. 29 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the outbreak of a cattle disease on a farm in South Canterbury. The item featured an interview with a farmer who used the expression ‘for Christ’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this expression was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times. The Authority found there was public interest and high value in hearing an authentic voice from a New Zealand farmer as part of the news report. The Authority also noted it has consistently found that variations of ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations, and in this case, the interviewed farmer used the phrase to express his frustration and strong support of the affected farm owner....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. The Authority upheld a complaint that the use of the word ‘fuck’ in an episode of the programme Eating Fried Chicken in the Shower breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. While the Authority recognised the value and nature of the programme, it was not preceded by any offensive language warning which the Authority considered necessary as the language used was outside audience expectations for the programme, and the programme was aired at 7:30pm, at a time when children may be listening. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests No Order...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of The AM Show featured an interview with Hon. Kelvin Davis regarding the Government’s scheduled series of nationwide Hui with Māori. The programme also discussed legal action taken by prisoners against the Department of Corrections over strip searches, and a short clip of comments by host Duncan Garner on this issue was included in a promo for The AM Show broadcast that evening. A complaint was made that Mr Garner’s comments in relation to the first topic amounted to racist ‘slurs’ against Māori and were dismissive of the Crown’s efforts to fulfil its Treaty obligations, and that the discussion of the second topic trivialised prisoners’ ‘serious abusive treatment’. The Authority did not uphold either aspect of the complaint....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a Swedish historian and author. During the interview, the presenter allegedly quoted former Finance Minister, Sir Roger Douglas. At the end of the item, the presenter also read out negative and critical comments from listeners about the interview. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s statement, allegedly attributed to Sir Roger Douglas, was inaccurate, and that reading out the comments received was offensive. The statement was not a material point of fact in the context of the item and would not have affected listeners’ understanding of the item as a whole, which was focused on the views and work of the interviewee. Further, listeners were unlikely to have understood the statement to be a direct quote from the former Finance Minister, and would not have been misled....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show. The comment was within audience expectations of the host's well-known style of presentation and humour, and unlikely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers in the context of a news and current affairs programme aimed at adults. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. [2] Iain Wiseman complained that the use of the word 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show when children were likely to be watching....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the second part of a two-part documentary, Leaving Neverland, concerning sexual abuse allegations made by two men against Michael Jackson. The Authority took into account the nature of the programme, which was clearly presented from the perspectives of the two men featured and included responses to these and similar allegations, from Michael Jackson and his lawyers. In this context, the Authority found: the broadcast would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress as contemplated under the good taste and decency standard; the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not address a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ for New Zealand viewers; the programme was unlikely to mislead viewers and did not breach the accuracy standard; and the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...