Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A campaign clip for the Ban 1080 Party (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) was broadcast on 10 September 2017 on Māori Television. The clip featured a voiceover discussing the purported use and effects of sodium fluoroacetate (1080 poison) on New Zealand’s flora, fauna and waterways, accompanied by footage of animal carcasses and 1080 baits in water. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the election programme was misleading and breached the Election Programmes Code and the Free-To-Air Television Code. The Authority found that the election programme did not contain statements of fact that were misleading, inaccurate, or indistinguishable from opinion. The claims made within the context of the broadcast were statements of political advocacy and opinion, made for the purpose of encouraging voters to vote for the Ban 1080 Party....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show. The comment was within audience expectations of the host's well-known style of presentation and humour, and unlikely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers in the context of a news and current affairs programme aimed at adults. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. [2] Iain Wiseman complained that the use of the word 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show when children were likely to be watching....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the course of a panel discussion on Paul Henry about cruise ships, the participants briefly talked about penis enlargement. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this discussion was ‘vulgar’ and inappropriate for a time when children could be watching television. Paul Henry is aimed at adult viewers and the conversation, which was brief and inexplicit, did not go beyond audience expectations of the programme and its presenters. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] During the course of a panel discussion on Paul Henry about cruise ships the participants briefly talked about penis enlargement. [2] Jasmine Perrett complained that this discussion was ‘vulgar’ and inappropriate for television, especially at a time when children could be watching....

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....

SummaryThe Authority has not upheld a complaint about a promo for Body Fixers, which included a brief shot of a woman exposing her hairy lower stomach area to a team of beauty therapists. The complainant initially complained to the broadcaster that the promo showed a man exposing his pubic hair. The Authority viewed the promo broadcast at the date and time identified by the complainant, and was satisfied that the promo showed a woman lifting her shirt to expose her lower stomach area, rather than a man pulling down his pants to show his pubic hair. The Authority nevertheless went on to consider the promo against the good taste and decency standard, finding that, in the context of a programme about beauty therapy, the fleeting shot of lower stomach body hair was unlikely to cause undue or widespread offence and distress....

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 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-084:Atkinson and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-084 PDF309. 13 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – investigation of availability of ingredients needed to make methamphetamine or ‘P’ – hidden camera footage of two shopkeepers – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not list all of the ingredients needed to make ‘P’ – no recipes or techniques mentioned – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – high level of public interest in the items – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not relevant to complainant’s concerns – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcaster did not mislead or alarm viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-093 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P F NOBLE of Mount Maunganui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about snipers in Baghdad shooting American soldiers – showed footage of nine soldiers being shot – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – strong warning – images were an integral part of the story – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast at 6pm on 10 November 2006, reported the recent occurrence of snipers shooting American soldiers in Baghdad, Iraq, and videotaping the shootings. As the reporter spoke, images of nine soldiers being shot were shown during the item. The following verbal warning preceded the item: A warning, the pictures in this report by ITV’s Bill Nealy could be very disturbing....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Mother – movie contained coarse language and sex scenes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Mother was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 29 November 2009. The movie contained coarse language including the words “fuck”, “shit” and “cock”, as well as three sex scenes. [2] The first sex scene involved a man and a woman lying next to each other in bed. The man was performing a sex act on the woman, but they were covered up to their shoulders in blankets and no nudity was visible....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-109 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBIN WARNES of Lower Hutt Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that quotes from the book ‘Everything is F*cked’ by Mark Manson, broadcast as part of a review of that book, breached the good taste and decency, programme information and violence standards. The Authority noted that the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in their own words, provided this does not cause undue harm. In this case, the nature of the item was clearly signalled by the introduction, and the quotes were contextualised by the reviewer who was using them as examples to emphasise and support his criticism of the book. This enabled listeners to make an informed decision about their listening and that of children in their care....