Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Vote 2014 which covered the results of the 2014 general election, used the terms 'jeez', 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus' as exclamations. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of these terms was offensive and inappropriate. The Authority has consistently recognised that the colloquial use of variations of 'Jesus' as an exclamation to express irritation, dismay or surprise is increasingly common and widely accepted. The use of the words in this context, during live coverage of an important political event, did not threaten standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During Vote 2014, comprising five hours of live coverage of the results of the 2014 general election, one of the hosts used the terms 'jeez' and 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus'....

ComplaintOne World of Sport: Rugby Sevens – live broadcast during half-time break – "fuck"– offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – barely audible – emotionally charged sports broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary One World of Sport: Rugby Sevens was broadcast live on TV One from 7. 00pm until 9. 36pm on 5 February 2000. Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that offensive language "containing the ‘f’ word" was broadcast in the half-time break of the final match, during filming of the New Zealand team’s half time huddle. Mr Schwabe said that it was irresponsible to broadcast from a live microphone in these and similar circumstances. TVNZ responded that, while there appeared to be strong language used, it was indistinct....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-015:Dunckley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-015 PDF93. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-007:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-007 PDF322. 28 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-173:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-173 PDF259. 91 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-071:Jackson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-071 PDF290. 38 KB...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that reality dating show Naked Attraction, broadcast after 10pm on TVNZ 2, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, potential love interests are introduced by gradually revealing their naked bodies, from the feet up (un-pixelated). With reference to previous decisions on earlier episodes of the programme, the Authority found that while the programme may not have been to everybody’s taste, ample information was available to enable viewers to make a different viewing choice. In the context there was no harm caused which justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a reporter’s comment during a segment on 1 News concerning the death of a child from a throat infection breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The Authority acknowledged the relevant phrase represented a poor choice of words. However, in the context, the Authority accepted that it was inadvertent and did not merit regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that an episode of Country Calendar depicted cruelty towards animals. The episode focused on the work of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Foundation’s conservation work. It included footage of Wapiti deer being hunted and shot from a helicopter, collected, and processed at an abattoir. The Authority has consistently found that hunting is a reality of life in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the depiction of hunting footage is generally acceptable provided it does not depict undue cruelty. The Authority did not consider this broadcast included any such footage justifying a departure from these findings. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

ComplaintSunday – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin charged with murder of terminally ill mother – some other views advanced – unbalanced ComplaintHolmes – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin – no other views advanced – unbalanced FindingsSunday – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item not a debate about euthanasia and included range of personal stories – not unbalanced – no uphold FindingsHolmes – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item involved interview with current newsmaker – her views about euthanasia balanced by other items during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary – Sunday [1] Euthanasia was the subject of an item on Sunday broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 March 2003....

ComplaintReel Life: The Lost Boys – documentary – language – fucking as adjective – "I’ll fucking kill everything" – offensive FindingsSection4(1)(a) – language helped viewers understanding of young man – other contextual factors – rating – time – warning – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The documentary Reel Life: The Lost Boys looked at the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado in 1999. An actor read from the website of one of the assailants in which, among other matters, he referred to "fucking people" and said "I’ll fucking kill everything". The programme was broadcast on TV One at 9. 45pm on 2 March 2001. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the "f" word was offensive and its use in the documentary breached the standards....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-1299 PDF930. 17 KB Complaint under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News and Late Edition – item about a Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing – complainant gave evidence – name suppressed – complained that she was identifiable from audio of voice and visual of part of her body – item included complainant’s occupation – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable because job description given together with visuals and audio – name suppression order given by court or tribunal not in itself grounds for privacy complaint – name suppression in this case given to all witnesses to ensure that they could continue to function effectively as Board employees – disclosure of B A’s role as witness in these circumstances highly offensive – upheldOrder Compensation to the complainant of $1500 under s....

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 1989One News – New Zealand Labour Party Opening Address included discussion about Capital Gains Tax – showed list of countries entitled “OECD countries with some form of tax capital” which included Singapore – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air TV Code – inclusion of Singapore in list graphic was not a material point of fact – Singapore was not referred to verbally – broadcaster and the Labour Party acknowledged that it was an error and it will not appear in future broadcasts – Opening Address not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Embarrassing Bodies – episode focusing on vaginas broadcast at 8. 30pm – close-up shots of women’s vaginas and surgical operations – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme had educational value – clear pre-broadcast warning for nudity and medical scenes – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and preceded by adequate warning – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....