Search Rapua

Summary An episode of Hollywood Sex, a two-part series dealing with the sex industry in Hollywood, was broadcast on TV2 on 2 September 1999 beginning at 9. 30pm. Rosemary McElroy, on behalf of Women Against Pornography, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that in spite of the warning preceding the programme, the average adult viewer would not have expected what she described as the degree of "pornographic" content which it contained. She contended that the programme breached accepted norms of good taste and decency, and cited several examples of what she considered to be objectionable material. TVNZ noted that various aspects of the sex industry had been depicted, and that the emphasis had been on the curious and grotesque. While the nature of the sexual activity discussed had been indicated, there had been no scenes of sexual intercourse or any full frontal nudity, it observed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-117 Decision No: 1997-118 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA promo for an episode in the series The Human Body showed a naked pregnant woman and was broadcast on TV One at about 6. 40pm on 17 September. Ms Hutchings of Palmerston North complained that it was disgusting to use that imagery to sell a programme, particularly in the early evening. She pointed out that viewers who might choose not to watch the programme because they found the images offensive were not given a choice about watching the promo because no prior warning was given. In its response, TVNZ maintained that as the image was not prurient it did not breach the good taste standard. It emphasised that pregnancy was part of the natural process of human life which the series traced from conception, through pregnancy and birth to adolescence, adulthood and finally death....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment broadcast on The Edge, the radio hosts made several references to the names ‘Mark Hunt’ and ‘Mike Hunt’, with the apparent intention to imply the phrase, ‘my c***’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this conversation breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that, while the conversation was gratuitous and immature, the hosts did not explicitly use the phrase, and the segment as a whole was not so extreme or offensive that it went beyond audience expectations of The Edge radio station. The Authority also declined to uphold the complaint under the children’s interests standard, finding children were unlikely to understand the conversation, mitigating the broadcast’s potential harm....

Dated: 6 July 2010 Decision No:  2010-001 Complainants GILLIAN ASHURST of Canterbury MARIAN DEAN of Whanganui DR NANCY HIGGINS of Waikouaiti JANET HUTCHINSON of Hastings PETER LOVE of Featherston KAREN MCCONNOCHIE  of Auckland ROBERT PARAMO of Wellington PEOPLE FIRST NEW ZEALAND INC of Wellington MARK SHANKS of Kaitaia TREVOR SHASKEY of Gisborne G SNEATH of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD broadcasting as TV One                                   Members Peter Radich, Chair Tapu Misa Mary Anne Shanahan Leigh Pearson...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair and denigratoryFindingsPreliminary findings – Authority applied TVNZ v VoTE approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Authority must consider whether finding a breach of standards would impose unreasonable limitation on free speech Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors favour broadcaster – public interest does not require finding a breach of standards simply because broadcasts lampooned Catholicism – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold in light of protection given to satire in 6(g)(iii) – threshold one of vitriol or hate speech – fact that offence caused of itself insufficient to find breach of standard – programmes not realistic as complainant alleged – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – satirical programmes would only be unfair in…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Audience poll on Classic Hits – discussed whether or not the listeners would be interested in watching an execution – alleged breach of good taste and decencyFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – no obscene language or content – context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a broadcast in Blenheim on Classic Hits on 9 September 2004 at 4. 30pm the announcer ran a poll asking whether or not the audience would be interested in watching an execution. [2] He introduced the segment by explaining that he had dreamt about watching an execution, and commented that there were many examples of people watching executions in the past. [3] The announcer then asked if listeners would go and watch a legal execution....

Complaint Promo for film American Beauty – wrongly classified – explicit sexual content at 7. 30pm – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – context - extreme brevity – no upholdStandard 7 – not explicit – classification appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the film American Beauty, to be shown at 8. 30pm that evening, was screened on TV2 at about 7. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. Among the scenes in the promo was one of a couple engaged in sexual intercourse. [2] Dr Exton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the depiction of explicit sexual behaviour, at a time when children were the target audience, breached the standards. [3] In response, TVNZ said the scene was brief and non-explicit and not inappropriate during the PGR time-band. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Masterchef NZ – three teams shown taking part in cooking competition – all teams used fresh crayfish as an ingredient – live crayfish shown accidentally being dropped onto the floor –one contestant placed three live crayfish into boiling water – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standardsClose Up – item on how to kill a crayfish correctly – interviewed the Masterchef NZ judge and contestant who boiled the crayfish – using a live crayfish the chef showed viewers how to kill it humanely – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Masterchef NZ correctly classified G – Close Up was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – neither programme required…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Meaty – footage of Akon’s concert in Trinidad – Akon filmed simulating sexual intercourse on stage with a 14-year-old girl – allegedly in breach of law and order, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – accuracy standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no specific individual identified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers – item lacked an appropriate warning – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster failed to exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Meaty, broadcast on C4 at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Peewee’s Sister – children’s short story about a boy who was being bullied for his school lunch – story contained two parts involving scuffles between characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and social responsibility Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – theme of a bully being beaten by his own tactics of physical force not inappropriate for a children’s story – broadcaster sufficiently considered the story’s effect on child listeners – not upheld Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintThe $20 Challenge – four participants challenged to live in Paris on $20 a day – one participant’s use of "bugger" and "shit" – offensive language FindingsG2 – language acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The $20 Challenge, broadcast on TV2 on 19 February 2001 at 7. 30pm, featured four young New Zealanders challenged to survive in Paris on just $20 for three days. The group was set a number of assignments, including talking part in a skate-athon, selling produce at a local market, and getting work in the kitchen of a leading restaurant. They also had to arrange their own accommodation. Harold White complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used by one of the participants in the challenge....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the use of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation in an episode of Shortland Street. The complaint was the use of ‘Jesus’ in this way disrespected New Zealanders who use that name only in prayer. The Authority acknowledged the complainant, and others in the community, find the language used offensive. However, as it has previously determined, the use of variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations did not threaten community standards of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency  ...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensiveSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Broadcasting Standards Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of 7 Days, in which a panellist said an Australian Santa would say ‘G’day cunts’, breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that the language was coarse and may have offended some viewers. However, taking into account relevant contextual factors including the nature of the programme, which is targeted at adults, audience expectations, the Adults Only classification, the warning for ‘bad’ language at the beginning of the programme, and the time of broadcast, the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, characters Lincoln and Jack took Nicole out for drinks to take her mind off her attacker. Lincoln, who was previously in a relationship with a man, was shown taking an illegal drug which he gave to Nicole. Later in the episode, Lincoln and Nicole were shown in bed together. In the episode broadcast the following evening, Jack asked Lincoln about being gay and sleeping with Nicole. Lincoln replied that he did not have to ‘put a label on it’, saying, ‘I’m just me’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme’s portrayal of Lincoln’s sexuality, by a straight actor, could have damaging effects on young viewers or those struggling with their sexuality....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview by Kim Hill with former nun and lesbian activist Monica Hingston breached broadcasting standards by including the suggestion that the Catholic Church, and by connection, all Catholics are corrupt. The Authority found that the interview did not contain a high level of condemnation, nor would it undermine community standards of good taste and decency, as it was a nuanced, considered conversation that was narrowly focused on Ms Hingston’s personal views and experiences with the Catholic Church. Taking into account public interest in the interview and the fact that the interview was clearly signalled as being from Ms Hingston’s perspective, the Authority also determined that it did not result in any unfairness to the Catholic Church. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....