Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bogan’s Heroes – extreme satire about prison life – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and violenceFindingsStandard 1 – majority considers contextual factors sufficient to avoid a breach – not upheld Standard 10 – majority considers violence unrealistic and farcical – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 20 July 2005 at 11. 25pm, TV2 broadcast Bogan’s Heroes, a satire about criminals and life in prison. Complaint [2] Mr Cozens complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was tasteless and offensive. He noted that the programme was described in the Listener as an AO-rated “extreme prison based comedy”. [3] He considered that the programme was excessively violent, indecent, and extremely offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with Larry Baldock about the citizens-initiated referendum on smacking – host asked the interviewee a question nine times challenging him to give an answer – host interrupted interviewee on several occasions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – host played the role of devil’s advocate – significant points of view presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee was robustly challenged and given an adequate opportunity to express his views – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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”....

Summary Naked women were shown in promos for the programme The Making of the Human Body broadcast on TV One on 8 November, 9 November and 10 November 1998 between 6. 00–8. 00pm. Ms Hutchings complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the display of naked women in G or PGR time breached the standard requiring the observance of good taste and decency. In her view, it was not appropriate to show images of naked women when children were watching television. She also argued that it was discriminatory to show only naked women and no naked men. TVNZ noted that the promo included an extract from the opening sequence of each programme which showed men and women of every age, many of whom were naked....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rome – two episodes contained offensive language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was gratuitous and could have been edited without affecting the storyline – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Two episodes of the historical drama Rome were broadcast on TV One at 10. 25pm on 13 January and at 11. 10pm on 3 February 2008. The 13 January episode contained the following lines: Caesar would’ve fucked Medusa if she’d had a crown. Nice manners, for a whore. Your son will eat shit and die before I make him legal. [I swear] on Juno’s cunt. I am a son of Hades! I fuck Concord in her arse! You can tell your lawyer to shove a taper up his arse and set himself alight....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Pretender – character stated "Jesus fucking Christ" – 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 The Pretender was broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on Sunday 28 September 2008. The programme was a satirical comedy that followed the life of a fictional Member of Parliament, Denis Plant, and his fictitious political party, Future New Zealand. [2] During the episode, one of the characters said "Jesus fucking Christ" after learning of a potentially disastrous political blunder by Mr Plant. [3] The programme was preceded by a verbal and written warning that stated: This programme is rated Adults Only. It contains language that may offend some people....

ComplaintSpin Doctors Election Special – drama – public relations company, satirised while suggesting election campaign strategies – "piss-head" – offensive language – imitation vomit – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for older children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election special episode of Spin Doctors was broadcast at 9. 00pm on TV One on 10 July 2002. It satirised the staff of a public relations company as they were shown trying to put together election campaign strategies for a number of political parties. [2] Elaine Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about some of the language used and the behaviour depicted with reference to the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister deserved respect, not ridicule....

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....

ComplaintFor Richer or Poorer – movie – "fuck off" – offensive language – insufficient warning FindingsStandard G2 – language not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G8 – classification and time of screening appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary For Richer or Poorer was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 29 April 2001. For Richer or Poorer is a comedy movie about a rich couple who hide among the Amish to avoid pursuit by the tax department. During one scene, the wife tells her husband to "fuck off". Ken and Jackie Francis complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that the language was offensive, and that the warning for "coarse" language which had preceded the broadcast had been insufficient....

Summary The Department of Conservation’s (DOC) management programme which involved the shooting of thar (mountain goats), was addressed during the John Banks Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Pacific between 6. 00–9. 00am on 10 August 1999. The host of the programme expressed his strong displeasure at DOC’s actions. He referred to DOC staff using phrases such as "filthy low life", and "filthy perverts", and expressed a wish that their helicopter would suffer a power failure. The Department of Conservation complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that the language used in the broadcast failed to maintain standards of decency and good taste, and that the host did not refer to the thar management process which it had developed. Declining to uphold the complaint, Radio Pacific argued that the strong language used was appropriate on a station which valued the power of free speech....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – segment called “Good Sorts” profiled volunteer fireman – interviewee used the phrase “good bastard” twice – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language used in complimentary way – not aggressive or abusive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News was an unclassified news programme targeted at adults – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – One News was an unclassified news programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – no discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about recent release of controversial Barbie doll – panellist suggested there was a market in the Muslim world for “terrorist Barbie”, and in response the host suggested “suicide bomber Barbie” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists were offering commentary and opinion in a satirical manner, making the point that the marketers of Barbie dolls were smart to release controversial Barbies – comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Muslims as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were light-hearted and intended to be satirical/a joke – most viewers would not have been offended or distressed by the comments taking into account the context – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-104:Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104 PDF313. 81 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-097:Collier and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-097 PDF266. 42 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. ]Two episodes of Story featured items about self-described ‘professional political campaigner’ Simon Lusk. In the first item, presenter Duncan Garner was shown hunting with Mr Lusk, and Mr Lusk apparently shot two deer. Excerpts of political figures being interviewed about their involvement with Mr Lusk, and of Mr Lusk discussing such involvement, were shown throughout the items. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the items were in breach of multiple broadcasting standards for the way Mr Lusk’s involvement in politics was reported and for featuring footage of deer hunting. The footage of the deer hunting was not so graphic or gratuitous that it would have offended a significant number of viewers, including child viewers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp featured a young girl who was passionate about pig hunting. The item contained footage of the girl and her father on a pig hunt, including footage of the pig bailed up by dogs, as well as the young girl holding the pig’s heart after it had been gutted, and carrying the carcass. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The subject matter of the item was clearly signposted by the hosts, who also provided a warning about the content. Viewers and caregivers were therefore given a reasonable opportunity to exercise discretion or make a different viewing choice....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a talkback segment on Sportstalk, the host Mark Watson criticised northern hemisphere sports media and the British and Irish Lions rugby team. The host made provocative statements about the Lions team who were at that time touring New Zealand, saying, among other things, ‘hopefully you get smashed’. The host then engaged in a heated discussion with a talkback caller about northern hemisphere rugby and rugby media. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host’s comments undermined broadcasting standards. The comments made, while critical and provocative, did not exceed audience expectations within the robust and opinionated environment of talkback radio, and particularly on Radio Sport. The Authority noted that the free and frank expression of opinions is an important aspect of the right to freedom of expression, and is valued in our society....