Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-026 Decision No: 1996-027 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SUZI ARCHER of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryIn an item on Morning Report broadcast on 12 August at 7. 28am, the presenter suggested to an investment advisor, when he was interviewed about the possible sale of the Wellington Airport, that potential buyers would "have to be blind" to think the sale was not a political minefield. Mr Mosen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that he, as a blind person, found the comment highly offensive, as it equated blindness with stupidity. He maintained that it was distressing and unhelpful to have ignorant and inaccurate perceptions about blindness reflected by a current affairs presenter. He sought an apology. RNZ defended the use of the phrase which it asserted was used in a colloquial sense and also a metaphorical sense, and maintained that the meaning of the figurative use was perfectly clear....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint An Audience with the King – offensive language – broadcaster failed to consider children’s viewing interests FindingsStandard 1 – majority – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – broadcaster was mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Audience with the King recorded the performance of stand-up comedian Mike King before a live audience. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 11 October 2002. [2] Graham Fox complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was offensive, and that it was irresponsible to have broadcast such material at a time when children were likely to be watching television. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the programme in context did not breach current norms of good taste and decency, and that it had considered the viewing interests of children....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB: Larry Williams Breakfast Show – host said "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" – offensive FindingsPrinciple 1 – colloquialism – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" was the phrase used by the host of the Larry Williams Breakfast Show when talking to a guest. The comment was made at about 8. 15am on 18 July 2003 on Newstalk ZB. [2] J H Mahoney complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the phrase, especially at that time of the morning, was disgusting. [3] In response, TRN described the phrase as a "widely used colloquialism" which would not have caused major offence to its primary audience aged 35 years and over....

Complaint60 Minutes – promo – clip of Norm Hewitt – use of word "shit" – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – breach of classification codes and time bands – not mindful of the effect on children – explicit material unacceptable in a promo FindingsStandard G2 – quietly used vernacular figure of speech – context – no uphold Standard G8 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard G12 – important social message for younger viewers – no uphold Standard G24 – no violence or other explicit material – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the current affairs programme 60 Minutes contained a 30-second clip of professional rugby player, Norm Hewitt. It was broadcast on 20 October 2001 at 6. 35pm during One News....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

SummaryFollowing talkback host John Banks’ observations about those who supported Winston Peters in the upcoming election, a caller to Radio Pacific was told by him that she was stupid for supporting Mr Peters. The comments were alleged to have been broadcast on the morning of 19 November 1999 between 6. 00–9. 00am. Joyce Rhodes, the caller, complained to The RadioWorks (the broadcaster of Radio Pacific), that the host’s treatment of her deserved a severe reprimand and that he should be fined for his insulting and degrading observations. She also objected to having been cut off without having an opportunity to be heard. In its response, The RadioWorks apologised to Ms Rhodes for having cut her off, and emphasised that it was not its policy to do this to callers. It advised that it had addressed the matter to the programme’s producer....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – promo broadcast during 3 News- showed one character asking another to "unbutton your shirt and your pants" – overweight male character shown standing naked in a fountain with his stomach covering his genitals – character shown in another scene bending over and having his bottom pinched by his female boss who said, "Yeah, this is going to work out just fine", after which a fart sound was heard and the woman said "excuse me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo was good natured, did not contain adult themes, and was correctly classified – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bomber’s Blog – presenter Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury used the word “fucking” and the words “Oh fuck” were displayed onscreen – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – political commentary and satire are important forms of speech – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During an episode of Bomber’s Blog, broadcast on Triangle TV at 9. 45pm on 7 December 2011, the presenter Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, while reviewing the week’s political news, referred to “John fucking Banks”. He also ran a segment “Wank o’ the Week” in which a graphic stating “Oh fuck” was displayed onscreen. The programme was preceded by the following graphic: Caution: High explosives. The content of the following programme may not reflect the views and opinions of Triangle Stratos....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the remark was blasphemous and offensive to Christians. The use of variants of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation does not amount to coarse language in modern secular society. Here it was intended to be humorous rather than abusive or offensive, and it was acceptable in context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ! ’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The episode was rated AO and was broadcast on TV ONE at 10. 05pm on 26 September 2013....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-075:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-075 PDF484. 07 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-066:...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show made comments that Chihuahuas look like ‘ball bags’ and ‘a scrotum with four legs’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments breached standards of good taste and decency. They were clearly intended to be humorous, and while children could have been listening at 3. 25pm, they would not have offended most listeners taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the station’s target audience and the expectations of regular listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction[1] During the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show, the hosts commented on a listener’s text message about their pet Chihuahua, saying, ‘[Chihuahuas] are like a little skin ball bag thing, aren’t they…? ’, and, ‘They are a scrotum with four legs, those dogs’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jeremy Wells' 'Like Mike' skit on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated, in which he parodied radio and television presenter Mike Hosking, Mr Wells discussed the flag debate and his admiration for John Key. Imitating Mr Hosking's voice he said, 'I was pleasuring myself watching John Key on Parliament TV the other day, and, just when things were coming to a climax, they cut to [Labour leader Andrew] Little and I lost thickness immediately'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comment breached standards of good taste and decency. The item was clearly satirical and intended to be humorous, and was consistent with audience expectations of Mr Wells, Mr Hosking, the programme and the radio station. The comments were inexplicit and in the nature of innuendo, and would have gone over the heads of most children....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a Newshub Live at 6pm item on the Paralympics depicting a hug between sisters Lisa Adams and Dame Valerie Adams. The complaint was that the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests, and law and order standards as the Paralympics occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst various physical distancing restrictions were in force. The Authority found the item did not breach the standards specified as it did not encourage non-compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence, or harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Law and Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment referring to a sex act during an episode of New Zealand Today, which the host and interviewee both laughed at. The programme was classified 16-LSC, preceded by a full-screen warning and screened at 9pm. Given audience expectations for the programme, the classification, the warning and the scheduling, the Authority found the comment would not cause widespread undue offence and audiences were able to make their own viewing choices. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a late night talkback programme with a fill-in host, a caller expressed her attitude to the Royal family by reference to what she described as ‘Charles raping Diana’. The host challenged this and asked her what she meant. She spoke about how the Queen ‘devised the “three in the bed” scenario’ and how she felt sorry for Diana. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to rape was unacceptable and the host should have terminated the call. It appeared the caller did not mean ‘rape’ in the literal sense, the conversation was not unduly offensive in the context of a late night talkback programme, and the host acted responsibly by asking the caller to clarify her point....

The Authority has declined to determine five complaints about different Newshub Live broadcasts under several standards, on the basis they were trivial, vexatious, or in all the circumstances, did not warrant determination. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial and vexatious, and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy, Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Programme Information, Law and Order...