Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-166 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOSH MOORE of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-042 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 74/94 Dated the 1st day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DENNIS WALKER of Havelock North Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 141/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DEAN KOCH of Eastbourne Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

SummaryA special Assignment programme broadcast on TV One on 31 May 1998 at 6. 30pm focused on the trial of Malcolm Rewa, accused and found guilty of a large number of sexual attacks on women. It replaced the advertised Our World programme. Mrs Mitchell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the time of the broadcast, which she said breached standards of good taste and decency, and the fact that it replaced a programme watched unsupervised by many children. She noted that no warning had been given about the change to the schedule, but even if it had, she observed, many families would not have been aware of the warning. In its response, TVNZ noted that Rewa’s trial, which had concluded the previous day, had elicited a great deal of public interest....

SummarySome highlights from mid-week programmes were played on 91. 9FM Napier on 15 November 1998, a Sunday afternoon. One extract contained the following exchange: "I work for Cunard", to which the reply was "I work fuckin’ ’ard too, but I still can’t afford a car like that! "Mr Leitch complained to the station that the extract was highly offensive. Not only was the extract broadcast live at some time during the week when there might have been an excuse that it "slipped through", he said, but it was repeated as something the broadcaster was proud of. The station responded that Mr Leitch’s comments had been duly noted and acted upon. It offered its apologies for any distress the broadcast might have caused him. Dissatisfied with the decision, Mr Leitch referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – contained conversations of a sexual nature and coarse language – 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 Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 25 January 2008. The episode included conversations of a sexual nature, which came about by the host asking questions of the four contestants and then commenting on their answers. [2] An example of one such exchange was as follows: Host: (asking one of the three female contestants) Who out of Sharon and Sue has had sex with their partner’s big toe?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintA viewer of Outrageous Fortune complained about the "graphic naked sex acts", which were "bordering on pornography", and the line "I want your cock in me now", delivered by one of the female characters. The viewer said the programme breached standards of good taste and decency and was demeaning to women. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVWorks argued that viewers expected material broadcast at 9. 30pm to be "mature in nature". It said that the sex scenes and language were appropriate for the Adults Only (AO) classification, and maintained that none of the sex scenes contained explicit nudity. The broadcaster said Outrageous Fortune often contained storylines revolving around sexual themes and there was considerable audience expectation of the type of material shown in the programme....

ComplaintLate Edition – news item – Solicitor General to appeal sentences of two convicted murderers, Dartelle Alder and Colin Bouwer – complainant convinced Mark Burton shown in item – breach of good taste and decency – inaccurate FindingsStandards 1 and 5 – complainant mistaken – Mark Burton not shown in item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Late Edition broadcast on TV One at 10. 45pm on 16 January 2002 reported that the Solicitor General was to appeal the sentences of two convicted murderers, Dartelle Alder and Colin Bouwer. The item included footage of the two men. [2] Ron Jenkins complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item included footage of Mark Burton, who was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity of murdering his mother....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one caller expressed views opposing drilling including the fact drilling resources were sent to China who manufactured it into ‘crap’. Later in the programme, the host sarcastically referred back to the caller’s comments, referring to the ‘Damn Chinese’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were offensive and disrespected Chinese people. The host was being sarcastic, and was actually defending China, not being derogatory. In any case the comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Chinese people. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one topic of discussion was proposed offshore drilling in Taranaki....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by Discovery NZ Ltd was insufficient, after it upheld a complaint under the good taste and decency standard about language and behaviour in a live interview on Newshub Live at 6pm. The interviewee was the father of Olympian Zoi Sadowski-Synnott, and was interviewed after her gold medal win. The interviewee used variations of the word ‘fuck’ in his response to questions. The Authority found the decision of the broadcaster to uphold the complaint, apologise and create guidance for live interview guests was adequate action taken given the nature of the breach. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken)...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a hip hop song contained racial slurs (including the n-word). The Authority noted the broadcaster apologised to the complainant for the offence caused and removed the song from its playlist. The Authority considered this action was sufficient and, in all the circumstances, it was not necessary to determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Privacy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The George Selectah Show included audio from a YouTube parody of an advertisement for ‘Chaffers New Zealand Style Deck Sealant’, making fun of the way New Zealanders pronounce the word ‘deck’ to sound like ‘dick’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that comments such as ‘every kid in the neighbourhood has been on my dick’ were in bad taste and joked about paedophilia. This was clearly intended to be humorous and did not promote or endorse paedophilia. Most regular listeners of George FM would not have been offended, taking into account the station’s target audience, and that the content was broadcast during school time when children were unlikely to be listening....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-055:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-055 PDF429. 31 KB...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Labour Party Asset Sales Advertisement – used the word “damn” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 1 (good taste and decency – “damn” is very low-level language and would not have offended most viewers – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party was broadcast on TV3 on 14 November 2011 at approximately 10pm. The advertisement contained the following voiceover: If you think power prices are high now, wait until we don’t own a damn thing....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

ComplaintHolmes – panel discussion on Australian Rugby League’s punishment of John Hopoate who had assaulted other players on the field – humorous approach – breach of good taste and decency – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – context – topical and newsworthy issue – humour balanced by serious debate – no uphold Standard G12 – current affairs programme – child viewers unlikely to have been watching alone – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7pm on 29 March 2001, focussed on Australian Rugby League’s decision to suspend John Hopoate for twelve weeks. Mr Hopoate had been found guilty of conduct contrary to the true spirit of rugby league for inserting his finger into the backsides of three players during a rugby league match....