Search Rapua

Complaint Holmes – interview with Prime Minister about refugees – reference to Nauru as a pile of bird shit – offensive language – inappropriate for school children FindingsStandard G2 – crude but acceptable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – minimal impact on children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Nauru was described as a "pile of bird shit" by the presenter on Holmes when interviewing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the Government’s decision to take 150 refugees from the Tampa. The item was broadcast on Holmes on 3 September 2001 beginning at 7. 00pm. [2] Alfred Howard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the phrase was totally inappropriate and offensive. He expressed particular concern that school children would hear the language....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-042 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P M MACCALLUM of Havelock North Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Shortland Street that included scenes of a man injecting another against his will, removing one of his organs, then drinking alcohol from a glass with a bloodied glove. In the context, including the programme’s nature, classification and intended audience, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress, or undue harm to child viewers. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards, about an episode of Seven Sharp. The clip complained about was a joke that did not contain any profane or sexually explicit material. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial and did not warrant consideration. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial)...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 156 /95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about footage on a 1 News item of a person’s negative reaction after receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The Authority acknowledged the high public value and education in news reporting about COVID-19 testing and found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. The law and order, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A – host interviewed Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions and John Barnett from South Pacific Pictures about controversy surrounding production of the film The Hobbit in New Zealand – host’s approach towards Ms Kelly allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s approach aggressive but did not extend to personal attack against Ms Kelly – Ms Kelly should have expected to be interviewed robustly about The Hobbit dispute – not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – Ms Kelly given adequate opportunity to present the union’s viewpoint – significant perspectives on the topic presented within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-046:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-046 PDF591. 9 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that a number of cooking and fishing programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. Killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life, and the complaint was based primarily on personal preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about a number of cooking and fishing shows aired on Choice TV. Ms Feral argued that these programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. As examples, Ms Feral referred to footage of live oysters being eaten and catch-and-release fishing, both of which she alleged to be barbaric and cruel....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the outbreak of a cattle disease on a farm in South Canterbury. The item featured an interview with a farmer who used the expression ‘for Christ’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this expression was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times. The Authority found there was public interest and high value in hearing an authentic voice from a New Zealand farmer as part of the news report. The Authority also noted it has consistently found that variations of ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations, and in this case, the interviewed farmer used the phrase to express his frustration and strong support of the affected farm owner....

The Authority upheld a complaint that a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Dasam Granth Da Sach breached the good taste and decency, violence and law and order standards. During the segment, the host made threatening comments, directed at members of a Sikh sect in response to recent violent incidents in India. The Authority found the comments undermined widely shared community standards, considering their seriousness, specificity and other contextual factors. The Authority also found the comments actively incited violence and promoted disrespect for the law within the specific community of listeners. The Authority recognised the value of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression but found the potential for harm justified a restriction of this right. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order Orders: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement...

The Authority declined to determine two complaints as they did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that warrant a determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine five complaints about different Newshub Live broadcasts under several standards, on the basis they were trivial, vexatious, or in all the circumstances, did not warrant determination. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial and vexatious, and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy, Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Programme Information, Law and Order...

ComplaintPromo – Charmed – slutty – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of children FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – PGR rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G22 – PGR rating correct – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Charmed was broadcast on TV3 on 30 September 2001 at 8. 20pm, during the film The Phantom Menace. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of the word "slutty" in a promo which was broadcast during PGR time. [3] TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. It considered that the promo was acceptable for screening during PGR time....

Complaint under section 8(1C)(C)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to China as “the godless state” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “godless” used in this context to mean “without a god”, not “wicked” – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not constitute a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “godless” to mean “without a god” did not jeopardise editorial independence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, made by the BBC, was broadcast at 6pm on 25 December 2007....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of 20/20 aired on free-to-air television on a Sunday at 9am, covering the abduction of Steven Stayner and the subsequent murder of several women by Steven’s brother Cary Stayner, breached the children’s interests and good taste and decency standards. The Authority found that, while the broadcast discussed some potentially distressing themes and subject matter, such as rape, murder and kidnapping, viewers had sufficient information to enable them to make informed choices about whether they or children in their care should view the broadcast. The Authority highlighted the importance of audience expectations and target audiences in their determination and ultimately found any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about Tauranga surgeon Dr Ian Breeze found guilty of professional misconduct – item described bowel operation which resulted in death of patient as “botched” – patient’s wife interviewed – relatives of other patients interviewed – allegedly breached good taste and decency – allegedly inaccurate, unfair, unbalancedFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “botched” is vernacular – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – matters raised by complainant not required for balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – matters raised by complainant not required for fairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tauranga surgeon Ian Breeze was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 2 December 2003....

ComplaintThe Edge – announcer makes anonymous call to woman – purports to be buying magazines – says has fetish for "shirtless Papua New Guinea women" – threatening and offensive – breach of good taste and decency FindingsPrinciple 1 – sinister – threatening – breach of good taste and decency – uphold OrderBroadcast of summary – costs of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a broadcast on The Edge on 17 October 2001 between 9. 30am and 10. 00am, one of the announcers telephoned a woman who was advertising National Geographic magazines, purporting to be a potential buyer. He told the woman he had a fetish for "topless Papua New Guinea women" and requested copies of the magazines carrying such pictures....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – broadcasts unsuitable for children Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) 22 November broadcast – 6. 31am – Principle 1 – uphold (3) 22 November broadcast – 6. 39am – no uphold (4) 23 November broadcast – 6. 39am – Principle 1 – uphold (5) 26 November broadcast – 7. 40am – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 and Guideline 7b – uphold (6) 27 November broadcast – 6. 35am – action taken insufficient – uphold (7) 30 November broadcast – 6. 36am – action taken insufficient – uphold (8) 6 December broadcast – 6. 19am – no uphold OrderTotal costs to the Crown in the sum of $3,000Cross-references: 2001-071–084; 2001-138–204 This headnote does not form part of the decision....