Search Rapua

SummaryLindsay Perigo in "The Politically Incorrect Show" broadcast on Radio Pacific on 10 May 1998 between 10. 00–10. 20am stated that he was shocked to have been told that a named lecturer at the University of Auckland had forbidden her graduate economics class to invite Sir Roger Douglas or anyone from the Business Roundtable to speak to the class. The University of Auckland, through the Office of the Vice Chancellor, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks breached the good taste standard, were inaccurate, unfair and taken out of context. Radio Pacific responded first by noting that the show was unashamedly subjective, and promoted libertarian ideas....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host's reference to graffiti artists’ attitude to suicide included the words – they "should commit suicide more quickly" – immature – bigoted – offensive FindingsPrinciple 1 and Principle 7 Guideline 7a – no tape – decline to determine Principle 8 – relevant – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Graffiti artists were discussed on talkback broadcast on Radio Pacific at about 4. 15pm on 1 June 2001. In reply to a caller expressing concern about the suicide rate among that group, the host had used words to the effect "it is a pity more of them do not commit suicide more quickly". [2] Alan Royal complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that the remark was "immature, bigoted and offensive"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday – item reported on an American survey that found women are attracted to men with anti-social traits – included footage from the movie Ghost Rider that showed a figure standing in a leather jacket with a burning skull for a head while the song “Bad to the Bone” played in the background – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed under Standard 1 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News: Midday, broadcast on TV One at 12pm on Thursday 19 June 2008, reported on the findings of an American university survey that women found men with anti-social personality traits more attractive....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback – complainant expressed opposition to proposal for crematorium in Waikanae – host frequently interrupted with questions and criticisms – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, unfair, and denigrated the elderly Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – not applicable – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – range of views advanced – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not unfair in robust talkback environment – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The proposal to build a crematorium in central Waikanae was an issue on the talkback session hosted by Justin du Fresne on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 4 December 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that two sex scenes in Nip/Tuck were too explicit for free-to-air television and breached standards of good taste and decency. One of the scenes included a threesome involving one of the lead characters. The viewer also complained about the use of offensive language during another scene in which a "phone sex artist" discussed throat surgery with her doctor. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ argued that the scenes were acceptable in the context of an AO-rated programme screening at 9. 30pm with a warning for adult sexual material. The broadcaster said the sex scenes were important to the development of the storyline, did not contain any explicit nudity, and were not pornographic. The Authority’s DecisionAs well as the contextual factors noted above (the programme's AO classification, the warning about sexual content, the 9....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

ComplaintThe Last Boy Scout – film – "fuck" – frequent use – offensive languageFindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Last Boy Scout, an action movie, was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 25pm on 10 August 2002. [2] Lyall Philip complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used was offensive, and that it occurred at the beginning of the movie when children might have still been up watching television. [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the language did not breach current norms of good taste and decency, and that the film was screened outside "children’s normally accepted viewing times"....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – talk – host Paul Holmes – host’s comment – sticking out like dog balls – offensive language FindingsPrinciple 1 – colloquial – not offensive in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A report about sport and recreation was referred to during the talk programme on Newstalk ZB between 7. 00–8. 00am on 31 January 2001. The host (Paul Holmes) said that one conclusion "stuck out like dog balls". D Brazier complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive. Explaining that the host was quoting a Committee member and that it was delivered in a conversational tone, TRN denied that the comment would cause any major offence among an audience aged 35 plus which listened Newstalk ZB. It declined to uphold the complaint....

SummaryAn episode of British Sex was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on 28 October 1999. This series was publicised as a programme with a straight talking approach to all things sexual, which featuring "ordinary" people. Daphne Painting complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "a polluting intrusion and desecration of [her] home". She complained particularly about footage of a "body caster", who modelled body parts, including genitalia, which she described as "reprehensible in the extreme". She also stated her opinion that the programme’s effect on children would be to "corrupt" them. TV3 responded that British Sex was AO rated, screened an hour after the AO watershed, and was preceded by a written and verbal warning. It did not consider that the "body caster" segment was unacceptable in that context, commenting that the castings were non-sexual, and were neither lewd nor degrading....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Henry Drive – referring to the name of the show segment, the host stated, “It’s time for our left right shit fight” – guest stated, “As much as this is meant to be a shit fight Sue, you are going to have to find some more subjects that we disagree on” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – low-level language used in a non-aggressive manner and in a robust talkback environment would not have surprised listeners – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Paul Henry Drive show was broadcast on Radio Live between 3pm and 6pm on Monday 20 June 2011....

Complaint under section 8(1C) 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, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes – however the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – attempt at humour and satire – freedom of expression outweighed potential harm caused – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – guideline 7a provides exemption for humour and satire – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-111:Stephens and Radio 95bFM - 1993-111 PDF290. 74 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Paul Henry on Radio Live the presenters said ‘bloody’ and ‘bugger’ several times. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language was unacceptable. These terms constituted low-level coarse language which would not have offended a significant number of listeners in the context of the broadcast. The language was within audience expectations of the presenters, the programme and the radio station. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During Paul Henry on Radio Live the presenters said ‘bloody’ and ‘bugger’ several times. [2] Dr John Tanner complained that this language was unacceptable. [3] As Dr Tanner did not nominate a specific standard in his complaint, MediaWorks assessed the complaint under what it considered to be the most relevant standard....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, in which Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall fund was described as ‘essentially his private slush fund’. The complaint was that this description was inaccurate and suggested illegal practices. In the context, given the public’s general understanding of ‘slush fund’, and the discretionary nature of the Duchy of Cornwall fund, the Authority found the use of the term was not inaccurate or misleading. The Authority also found this term did not undermine widely held community standards, and the balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Balance...

Summary A documentary entitled The London Connection was broadcast on TV One on 16 August 1999 beginning at 8. 30pm. Host Gary McCormick interviewed New Zealanders living and working in London. He also visited a club frequented by young New Zealanders where they were shown drinking heavily and where young women were seen dancing topless. Mr Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage showing "several inebriated, albeit buxom" women dancing topless breached the good taste standard. TVNZ responded first that the sequence to which Mr Boyce objected was broadcast near the end of the hour-long programme, well after the widely-recognised watershed. It agreed that the behaviour of the young women was coarse and vulgar, but did not consider that it exceeded the good taste standard in the context in which it was shown. It declined to uphold the complaint....