Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks in response to a breach of the fairness standard during a segment of Jay-Jay, Flynny and Jase Driving You Home was insufficient. The segment featured host Flynny telling a story about an ‘embalmer’ who had embalmed their cat after it passed away. The Authority agreed that the complainant was unfairly treated by the broadcaster in breach of the fairness standard. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster, which included a direct apology to the complainant, and counselling of the hosts concerned, was proportionate to the breach. The Authority also found that the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and that the complainant’s privacy was not breached as they were not identifiable in the broadcast. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken), Good Taste and Decency, Privacy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the good taste and decency standard about a brief segment on The Project displaying an image of a scented candle developed by celebrity Gwyneth Paltrow. The complaint was that the name of the candle was disgusting and vile and unnecessary to report on. The Authority acknowledged that this content could have been better signposted for viewers, and some may have been surprised by it and found it distasteful. However reporting the name of the candle in itself did not threaten standards of good taste and decency at a level which warranted limiting freedom of expression, taking into account the wider context of the broadcast. The segment reported on a real product available for sale and the item viewed in its entirety was consistent with audience expectations of The Project and its typical style of presentation and humour....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the satirical series Go Ahead Caller, in which host Ken Oath ‘equates our majority government with those in some other countries where socialism failed’, featured a phone call from a fictional caller, who used the word ‘shit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast and the use of this word breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that the use of the word complained about was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, in the context of the broadcast. The Authority also found that, given the satirical nature of the programme and audience expectations, the broadcast did not threaten community norms of good taste and decency, or justify restricting freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Three episodes of a British dating game show, Naked Attraction, were broadcast on TVNZ 2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 10, 17 and 24 November 2017. During each episode, a clothed individual selected a date from six naked individuals, who were gradually revealed in stages from the feet up, with no blurring or pixelation of nudity. Six complainants referred their complaints about these episodes of Naked Attraction to the Authority, complaining that the programme contained a high level of full frontal nudity and sexual discussion, which was offensive and contrary to standards of good taste and decency. The complainants also submitted that the programme denigrated, or was discriminatory towards, both participants and viewers, and was broadcast at a time on a weekend night when children were likely to be watching....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Hunter Adventures featuring two groups of duck shooters in New Zealand. The episode included footage of people, including young people, using firearms, shooting ducks, celebrating successful shots, holding and plucking dead ducks, and showcasing hunting gear and equipment. Taking into account the relevant contextual factors including the programme’s classification, target audience and audience expectations, the broadcast did not breach the good taste and decency, children’s interests or violence standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that language used in Million Dollar Listing LA breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The programme was rated G and broadcast at 2. 20pm on a Sunday. In the context, and given most of the words were censored and did not appear until the final five minutes of the 55-minute programme, overall it was unlikely to likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. It was also unlikely to alarm or distress any children who were watching. The audible words did not go beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Following an interview with Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, Mike Hosking, on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show, replayed the interview and commented on the length of a pause during the interview. In doing so, Hosking questioned whether it was a ‘pause or a gabble’ and included sound effects of trucks passing and a turkey gobbling to ‘measure’ the pause. The complainants allege this second segment breached five standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it belittled the Associate Health Minister. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards and was not unfair to the Associate Health Minister. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a segment on 7 Days which made a joke referring to a picture of Prince Philip, shortly after his death. The Authority found the segment did not contain any material outside of what viewers could reasonably expect from the programme (as a long-running comedy show based on finding comedic elements in the news of the week, audiences are well-familiar with its format and style of content and humour), and did not cause any harm justifying the restriction of freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the promo for Hustlers which was broadcast during the movie Minions. The promo did not breach the good taste and decency or children’s interests standards as it was consistent with the PG classification for Minions. Child viewers were unlikely to understand the adult themes, and the promo did not contain nudity or explicit sexual content. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-124:Brandon and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1993-124 PDF311. 4 KB...

Summary A segment in the programme Eurotrash focussed on a "pornography king" and some of his activities. Another segment focussed on a large man whose naked body was treated as a work of art and displayed in some European art galleries. The programme was broadcast on TV4 on 18 February 1999, commencing at 8. 30pm. Ms Gowardman complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that in viewing the segment she was confronted with full frontal and oral sex. The two items depicted shocking and indecent behaviour, and presented young people with incorrect perspectives on adult sexual relationships, she wrote. TV4 responded that the programme was rated AO, and was preceded by a verbal and written warning. The broadcaster denied that the item contained full frontal and oral sex....

SummaryDuring the course of the evening’s broadcast on The Rock on 28 June 1999, reference was made to a computer image of "a Dalmatian shagging a chick" and an All Black’s sexual orientation. The word "fuck" was used on several occasions in a broadcast on The Rock during the evening two weeks earlier – on 14 June 1999 – and a female caller who objected to being called "a dozy bitch" was told to "fuck off" if she did not like it. Mr Bartlett complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that it had breached the Broadcasting Act by using discriminatory, unfair and indecent language. He cited a number of specific instances which he asked the station to address. The station’s programme director responded that the show was targeted at an audience of males aged between 18–39 years and that its style appealed to them....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-066 Decision No: 1997-067 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MAURICE HOY of Auckland and K J WERDER of Waitoa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-089 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAN GALLAGHER of Invercargill Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-081 Dated the 18th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANCES DUNHAM of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummarySome words which were pronounced in the same way but had different meanings were discussed on the children’s programme You and Me, broadcast on TV3 at about 3. 25pm on 30 July 1998. "Chairs" and "cheers" were given as one such pair. Mr Gibson complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that these words should be pronounced differently, and that the programme’s effort to suggest otherwise breached the standards relating to good taste and balance. In response to the complaint, TV3 did not accept that the good taste standard was in question. As for balance, it said that viewers were advised that the words sounded the same, not that they were pronounced the same, and it declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Gibson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-021 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PEGGY BURTON of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported that a man had drowned trying to save two children – showed footage of ambulance officers performing CPR and then apologising to the man’s family because they could not revive him – showed family grieving next to the body – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – item included prolonged and close-up footage of grieving family members – offensive intrusion into highly vulnerable and distressing moment – privacy of family members breached – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unclassified news programme aimed at adults – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....