Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fence Jumping – promo – documentary about gay men who “came out” when married – broadcast during One News beginning at 6. 00pm – allegedly offensive, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 and Guideline 7b (classification) – appropriately classified as G – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – homosexuality dealt with in straightforward way which was suitable for children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the documentary Fence Jumping was broadcast during One News at about 6. 30pm on Sunday 25 April 2004. The documentary was about men who, while married, realised that they were gay and how such men “came out”. The promo indicated the programme’s content....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host said that obese children “should be taken away from their parents and put in a car compactor” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the beginning of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 3 February 2009, the programme’s presenters outlined the upcoming items for the day. One host stated, “should obese children be taken away from their parents? That is what Australian experts are suggesting – well, some of them anyway. We’ll wade into the debate after 7”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – message “Kill Yourself Now” flashed on the screen for a split second – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – action taken by the broadcaster sufficient – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – standard not applicable – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] During an episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 2 November 2007, the message “Kill Yourself Now” was displayed on the screen just before the programme’s opening credits....

SummaryA programme in the Documentary New Zealand series entitled "Hell for Leather" was broadcast on TV One on 14 June 1999 at 8. 30pm. It examined the fortunes of a footwear company managed by a prominent Maori businesswoman, as it struggled to avoid closure. Staff and management were seen to be severely stressed by the prospect of the business collapsing. Mr Christensen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used in a sequence where the manager and her staff were engaged in heated discussions regarding the company’s future. In his view, the language was unacceptable for broadcast, and should have been edited out. TVNZ responded that it considered the sequence to be important for contextual reasons as it revealed the extent of the strain the people were under....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – footage from British reality series Sex Inspectors included a couple engaged in various sexual acts – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification and programme information standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – warning sufficient – not upheld Standards 2–6 and 8 – complaint based on mistake – not relevant – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 14 December 2004 the presenter of Eating Media Lunch on TV2 introduced a segment which was to feature in the following episode. Brief footage from a British reality series called Sex Inspectors was shown, including a couple engaged in various sexual acts....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – footage of teenagers committing animal cruelty offences – images of hedgehogs and ducks subjected to cruelty – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 – good taste and decency – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 – children’s interests – contextual factors, particularly warnings, were sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV3 broadcast an item on 25 July 2005 at 7. 30pm entitled “God’s Creatures”, as part of the 60 Minutes current affairs programme. The item covered the recent arrest of two people in Huntly for animal cruelty. The item also dealt with the suggested link between animal cruelty and subsequent violent offences against people. [2] The item reported that the teenagers had set fire to cages which had trapped two feral cats....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – New York correspondent reported on Christie Brinkley’s divorce – said that her husband “masturbated to web cams” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast was broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 11 July 2008. Each week, the programme’s New York correspondent reported on the latest celebrity news from the United States....

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 under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – comment included a statement that the Green Party was the party of square dancers – complainant objected to square dancers being associated with the Green Party – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated square dancersFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant to complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – square dancers not a “section of the community” to which the guideline applies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 6 June 2006 at approximately 7....

ComplaintFight For Life – charity entertainment including boxing and singing for The Yellow Ribbon Trust – one boxer asked if he had a “big knob” – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – contextual matters – majority – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Australian Mark Geyer was one of the boxers who participated in Fight For Life, a charity entertainment programme involving boxing, comedy, and singing for The Yellow Ribbon Trust, broadcast on TV3 between 7. 30–11. 00pm on 14 August 2003. Before his fight, Mr Geyer was asked whether he had a “big knob”. [2] Jean Lattin and Eardley Dijkstra each complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the question was offensive and improper. [3] In response, TV3 explained that the question was part of a live broadcast and unscripted and, given the time of the broadcast (10....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – segment where host played the role of an Iraqi terrorist – comments about American soldiers and a British hostage being held by terrorists – allegedly breached good taste and decencyFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – seen in context, item not in poor taste or indecent – satirical and ironic comment on situation in Iraq – presenter known for satirical approach to issues – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment called “World City” was broadcast on Newstalk ZB as part of the Paul Holmes Breakfast on 29 September 2004. At the time of the broadcast, British man Kenneth Bigley had been captured by Iraqi terrorists. In the “World City” segment, the presenter (Paul Holmes) imitated Abu Massad Al Zarqari, an Iraqi terrorist....

ComplaintMorning Report – audio of a woman giving birth – preceded item about maternity services – gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 1 and Guideline 1a; Principle 5 and Guideline 5c & Principle 7 and Guideline 7d – not socially irresponsible – not gratuitous – no warning necessary – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Morning Report which discussed the lack of maternity services in Queenstown was broadcast on National Radio on Monday 13 January 2003. The item was introduced with a brief sound effect of a woman giving birth. [2] James Cone complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the audio was gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible. [3] In response, RNZ said that the audio was neither socially irresponsible, nor was it intended to cause alarm....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on “strip club turf war” contained footage of a stripper wearing only a G-string and dancing erotically – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – broadcaster upheld the complaint under Standards 1 and 9 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction Taken: Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – action taken by broadcaster sufficient considering the nature of the breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Thursday 3 May 2012, reported on a “strip club turf war” in Wellington involving opposition from strip club operators and the police to a new entrant to the city’s entertainment area....

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-002:Dorf and Television New Zealand Ltd - ID1992-002 PDF59. 04 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the talkback programme, Overnighter, host Garry McAlpine invited listeners to call in to discuss the issues facing New Zealand in 2018, one of which was the upcoming cannabis referendum. Mr McAlpine strongly expressed his view, throughout the programme, that cannabis should be decriminalised for medicinal and recreational use. A number of callers, including the complainant, expressed their views on the subject, with some supportive of, and others opposed to, Mr McAlpine’s views. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Talkback radio is known for robust discussion, and broadcasting standards recognise that it is an opinionated environment, with hosts granted some latitude to be provocative and edgy in the interests of generating robust debate. This programme in particular featured genuine discussion on an important issue in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about a Newshub item in which the presenter commented, ‘And I thought the only reason we watch Aussie Rules [AFL] was for the short shorts’, has not been upheld by the Authority. The Authority found that the comment, while inappropriate, did not reach the threshold to be considered a serious violation of community norms of good taste and decency. The Authority acknowledged the importance of contextual factors in considering whether the standards have been breached, including the nature of Newshub as an unclassified news programme and audience expectations of the broadcast. The Authority recognised that the statement was not made with malice or nastiness and found the comment did not breach the discrimination and denigration, balance or fairness standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Hard Stuff with Nigel Latta focused on issues around retirement. At the beginning of the episode, Nigel Latta was transformed into an elderly man using special effects make-up. He reacted to his transformation with the exclamation, ‘Oh my God! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language was offensive and that presenters of current affairs or documentary programmes should be required to use a higher standard of language. The Authority followed its findings in previous decisions that expressions such as ‘Oh my God’ are often used as exclamations and are not intended to be offensive. It was satisfied that in the context it was used by the presenter, the expression would not generally be considered to threaten current norms of good taste and decency....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...