Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 95/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN E WEBB of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q+A – panel discussion about immigration policy in New Zealand – one panellist stated that meeting immigration criteria was not an easy process and included a test for syphilis – host responded “How did the test turn out? I’m sorry! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – question was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – unaccompanied children unlikely to watch news programmes – host’s question would have gone over the heads of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Madhouse – The Edge – host’s comments – men who use moisturiser do not necessarily “take it up the bum” – host’s “arse” so firm he could open a twist top stubby with his “butt cheeks” – various other comments – alleged breach of good taste and decencyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – comments crass and vulgar but did not reach threshold in context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Just before 6. 30am on 16 April 2004, one of the hosts of The Morning Madhouse on radio station The Edge asked listeners to telephone with the answer to the following question: “13% of men secretly do what? ”[2] The first caller suggested that they “shave their balls” and that “females don’t mind getting ‘down there’ and licking”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Off the Wire – participants discussed a food outlet that had opened in a church – commented “the body of Christ does come with six grams of fat” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – in context, not indecent or in poor taste – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item not critical of Christians or Christian practices – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The participants in Off the Wire, broadcast on National Radio on 3 October 2004 at around 3:00 am discussed recent news events, including the opening of a food outlet in a New York church....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on group of duck hunters – hunters shown drinking alcohol and using firearms – brands of alcohol visible – man shown taking his pants off and diving onto a blow-up doll – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – item contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of man with blow-up doll and mixing of firearms and alcohol strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Sports Tonight – words “tough” and “disconnect” allegedly used by presenters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and privacy Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order) and 3 (privacy) – adequate response from broadcaster – use of the words did not threaten broadcasting standards in any way – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Friday 25 September 2009. Sports Tonight was broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 30 September 2009....

ComplaintAssignment – preview of following week’s item of state of New Zealand railways – interviewees use words "bugger" and "shit-house" – breach of good taste and decency FindingsS. 4(1)(a) – language acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The closing segment of Assignment broadcast on TV One on 18 October 2001 at 8. 30pm previewed an item to be broadcast the following week about the state of New Zealand’s railways. One of the interviewees used the word "bugger" and another used the word "shit-house". [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of the language was "deliberate gutter television" and contrary to good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Forgetting Sarah Marshall– contained three brief shots of a naked man with his genitals visible at approximately 8. 35pm – use of words “fuck” and “fucking” at about 8. 40pm – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – nudity was fleeting and non-sexualised – expletives were incidental and used colloquially rather than abusively – content did not amount to “strong adult material” broadcast too soon after the AO watershed – movie was classified AO and broadcast outside children’s viewing times – warning for nudity and language allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Forgetting Sarah Marshall was broadcast on TV3 at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport – discussion about oil prices – guest referred to “thieving Arab bastards” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated ArabsFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (denigration) – did not amount to blackening or hate speech – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a light-hearted exchange about what he regarded as the exorbitant cost of filling the petrol tank in his car, a guest on Radio Sport used the phrase “thieving Arab bastards”. The comment was broadcast at about 8. 30am on 31 March 2006. Complaint [2] Jack Sturt complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the phrase was inexcusable....

This decision has been amended to remove the name of the complainant. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item on financial management and an adult products business – complainant participated in item on the condition that she would not be identifiable – exterior shots of her home were broadcast – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, and fairness FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant identified despite agreement of anonymity – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TVNZ broadcast an item called “Dollars and Sense” in Sunday on 27 November 2005 at 7. 30pm, and re-screened it on 4 December at 10am....

ComplaintMarathon Man – film – offensive language – warning ought to have been broadcast – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The movie Marathon Man was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on 22 May 2002. [2] Mrs M Charlton complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the movie contained offensive language, and that viewers ought to have been warned about its use. [3] Prime upheld the complaint and apologised to the complainant. It explained that appropriate staff had been reminded of Prime’s collective responsibility "with emphasis placed on not making assumptions on behalf of viewers and that warnings must be specific in nature". [4] Dissatisfied with the action taken in response to her complaint, Mrs Charlton referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court and sent back to the BSA to rehear: AP 99/01 PDF369. 72 KBComplaintLoud overreaching advertisements in religious programmes broadcast on Christmas Eve – breach of good tasteFindingsG2 – presence and type of advertising not an issue of broadcasting standards – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe programmes screened on TV One between 10:15pm and midnight on Christmas Eve included carols, Christmas music and Bible readings. John Watson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was offensive for the commercial breaks during these programmes to feature Boxing Day bargains and an exhortation to end prostitution. Questioning whether the complaint raised a matter of broadcasting standards, TVNZ said that it was, by law, a commercial organisation....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained footage of bare breasts and women in their underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information and children’s interests standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of semi-naked women were not sexualised or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item conveyed a positive message – item did not denigrate women – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – programme did not use subliminal perception – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme classified PGR – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7....

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

Summary A line from the movie American Anthem which included offensive language was the subject of a complaint. In the movie, two gymnasts fall in love and deal with stressful personal lives, while training for the US national team trials. The movie was broadcast on TV2 on 10 October 1999 beginning at 12. 00pm. Kellie Watkins complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was inappropriate for the time of broadcast. TVNZ upheld the complaint as a breach of standards G2 and G12. As a consequence, it reported that the movie was reclassified AO, so that future broadcasts in PGR time would be prevented unless the film was cut. TVNZ also apologised to Ms Watkins and her household. Ms Watkins contended that TVNZ’s action in response to the upheld complaint was inadequate....

ComplaintPromo for Always Greener – bare buttocks masked by a "smiley face" – indecent – harmful to children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – masking device not offensive – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – not harmful to child viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A promo for Always Greener was broadcast on TV One at various times on 2 February 2003. A "smiley face" was used to cover the bare buttocks of a male character. [2] John Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the human form in this manner was offensive and harmful to children. [3] In response, TVNZ said the "smiley face" was attached so that the promo could be shown at any time. It declined to uphold the complaint that the masking breached broadcasting standards....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

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 and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9. 30pm on 22 June 2005. The series was set in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown), and was centred around a young priest called Father Nicholas, a group of corrupt cardinals and a child-like Pope character. [2] During the episode on 22 June 2005, Father Nicholas became a wrestling hero after accidentally knocking out pro-wrestler “Ivan the Invincible”....