Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-016 Dated the 27th of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PIRIPI WHAANGA of Wellington Broadcaster AOTEAROA NATIONAL MAORI RADIO J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-072 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEN FRANCIS of Hamilton Broadcaster CONTACT 89 FM LIMITED (Hamilton) J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-176 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – episode included reference to a prank in which the character Butters was sleeping and another character, Cartman, purportedly put Butters’ penis in Cartman’s mouth and took a photo – another scene involved Cartman blindfolding Butters and trying to trick Butters into letting Cartman put his penis into Butters’ mouth – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item had a complex and multifaceted storyline – acts were not intended to be sexual – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a church’s campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word – “Jesus” and “Christ” repeated a number of times as examples of the language complained about – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – used as an expression of dismay and surprise – accepted colloquial use – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed Standard 6 (fairness) – Pastor Driscoll treated fairly in the item – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up at 7pm on TV One on 12 October 2005 reported that the Rangiora New Life Church had launched a campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word....

ComplaintThe Assignment – film – sexual behaviour and nudity – offensive – excessive violence – unacceptable at 8. 30pm FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9b, 9c – 8. 40pm on Saturday – violent scene screened soon after the watershed – warnings by themselves may not be sufficient – insufficient discretion exercised – upholdStandard 10 and Guideline 10a – violence not gratuitous given factual basis – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The film The Assignment was screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Saturday 19 October 2002. Based on the life of the notorious terrorist Carlos (The Jackal), the film’s story-line involved a CIA scheme to persuade Carlos’s allies to suspect his motives and to assassinate him....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintStepping Out – Documentary New Zealand – documentary about young urban Maori on hikoi in Far North – use of "fuck" and its derivatives – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – language used minimally – appropriate in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Documentary New Zealand: Stepping Out was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 9 October 2000. It followed six young urban Maori as they traced on foot a route taken by their ancestor Tohe down the west coast of the Far North. During the documentary, the words "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of such "grossly offensive language"....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on the Boobs on Bikes parade in Wellington – contained footage of bare-breasted women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of bare breasts was not salacious – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheldStandard 7 (programme classification) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 7 November 2008, reported on the "Boobs on Bikes" parade promoting the Erotica exhibition that took place in Wellington....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Outrageous Fortune – scene in which two actors have sex in a video store – scene in which male character was touching the female character in a sexual manner – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Outrageous Fortune, a comedy-drama series about a one-family crime wave trying to go straight, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on 14 November 2006. The episode was preceded by a warning which said: This programme is rated adults only and is recommended for a mature audience. It contains sexual material and language that may offend some people....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Bad Santa – promo screened during family Christmas movie The Santa Clause 2 – contained brief shots of “Bad Santa” smoking and throwing a rock at a car windshield – “Bad Santa” told child sitting on his knee that he “loved a woman who wasn’t clean” and when asked if that was Mrs Santa he replied “No, it was her sister” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual references were implied and would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – promo was correctly rated PGR and did not contain any material which warranted a higher classification of AO – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – most viewers would not have been offended by the promo when broadcast in this…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – segment was an attempt at humour and satire – the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context, was not socially irresponsible, and did not reach high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSpin City – offensive behaviour – homosexual activity – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – not offensive – no uphold Standard G12 – jokes involving homosexuality not intrinsically unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary In an episode of Spin City, the main character discovered that a friend of his was gay. The programme featured the attraction between the friend and another gay man. It was broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on 20 April 2001. Janice Urry complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast included "situations of a distinctly homosexual nature" and "homosexual intercourse". She described the material as "disgusting", "degrading" and unsuitable for broadcast to children. TVNZ maintained that homosexuality was not a subject which should be forbidden when children were watching television....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on world’s first 3D erotic film, Sex and Zen – included clips from the movie – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – legitimate news story – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – film clips were effectively censored – unclassified news programme targeted at adults – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item during 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 5 May 2011, reported on the opening of the world’s first 3D erotic film, Sex and Zen. The item was introduced as follows: Thanks to Avatar, when people think of 3D films they probably conjure up the colour blue....

Paula Rose declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A panel segment during Larry Williams Drive discussed a recent High Court action brought by Phillip Smith against the Department of Corrections (Corrections), in which Mr Smith argued that his freedom of expression had been breached by Corrections staff preventing him from wearing his toupee. At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Mr Williams stated: ‘I say Janet, solitary confinement 24/7, dark room, with his toupee, with a little bit of waterboarding just to make it interesting’. The other panellists laughed, with one commenting, ‘You’re a hard man, Larry’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints regarding an episode of Shortland Street were not upheld. In the episode a new character appointed CEO of the Shortland Street hospital commented, ‘Puffed up, privileged Pakeha men drunk on control, terrified of change… we are the future, Esther, not them,’ referring to the hospital’s management. Complaints were made that this statement was sexist, racist and offensive to white men. The Authority reviewed the programme and relevant contextual factors, including established expectations of Shortland Street as a long-running, fictional soap opera/drama, and concluded the character’s statement did not breach broadcasting standards. It found upholding the complaints in this context would unreasonably limit the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness The broadcast[1] A Shortland Street episode featured a new CEO, Te Rongopai, starting at Shortland Street hospital....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....