Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-084 Dated the 10th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANK HARRIS of Mount Maunganui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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 1989Breakfast – host commented on prisoners being handed over to Afghan security forces – "does anyone care if we put drills through the heads of these people" and "we need to get out the Stanley knives" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were provocative and hyperbolic but intended to stimulate discussion – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on Tuesday 17 August 2010, presenter Paul Henry interviewed TVNZ's political editor on recent events in Afghanistan....

SummaryHost John Banks described parking wardens as "low lifes" in his programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 26 August 1999 at about 8. 15am. Adele Baulch complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that as a former parking warden she found the comment objectionable. She sought a public apology from Mr Banks to all parking wardens in New Zealand. The broadcaster responded that no malice had been intended by the remark but admitted that the host’s language had been "a little strong". It apologised for distress caused to the complainant, and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with The RadioWorks’ decision, Mrs Baulch referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. DecisionThe members of the Authority have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion about New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup – caller suggested host was overly critical of the team – host’s response – abusive – unfair – sexist FindingsPrinciple 1 – subsumed Principle 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7, Guideline 7a – threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup was discussed on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 15 March 2003 hosted by Doug Golightly. One woman caller suggested to the host that he was overly critical of the team. The host advised the caller to return to domestic duties....

ComplaintLexus Sunday Theatre: Hound of the Baskervilles – Promo – Jesus Christ – blasphemy FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6a – did not encourage denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Jesus Christ" was the phrase uttered by a character shown in the promo for The Hound of the Baskervilles. The promo for the Sherlock Holmes drama, to be screened on "Lexus Sunday Theatre", was broadcast on TV One at about 7. 15pm on 31 May 2003. [2] Evan Swale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that use of the phrase "Jesus Christ" was denigratory, and insulting and offensive. [3] In response, TVNZ acknowledged that the use of the phrase in that way could cause offence to devout Christians....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback – caller referred to Prime Minister Helen Clark as "a barren bitch and a sleeping homosexual" – failure to cut off caller – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster failed to respond to complaint within statutory 20 working days – later advised the broadcast of derogatory comments against policy – host apologised and gave assurance that it would not occur again FindingsPrinciple 1 – personal abuse – unacceptable – uphold Principle 8 – no tape – no excuse – uphold OrderPrinciple 1 – broadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 20 September 2001 between 9. 00pm and 10. 00pm, a listener heard a caller to the station describe Prime Minister Helen Clark as "a barren bitch and a sleeping homosexual"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Bad Santa – promo screened during family Christmas movie The Santa Clause 2 – contained brief shots of “Bad Santa” smoking and throwing a rock at a car windshield – “Bad Santa” told child sitting on his knee that he “loved a woman who wasn’t clean” and when asked if that was Mrs Santa he replied “No, it was her sister” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual references were implied and would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – promo was correctly rated PGR and did not contain any material which warranted a higher classification of AO – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – most viewers would not have been offended by the promo when broadcast in this…...

ComplaintSpace – interview with rock group Pantera – language – fuck – motherfucker – offensive – standard G2 upheld by broadcaster – warning acknowledged as inadequate – action taken to improve warnings FindingsDecline to determine – s. 11(b) – attempt by complainant to re-litigate conviction for use of obscene language under Telecommunications Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "Pantera", a heavy metal band, was interviewed on Space which was broadcast on TV2 on 11 May 2001 starting at 10. 25pm. Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language in a programme aimed at young people was obscene. In response, TVNZ noted that the interview included the words "fuck" and "motherfucker". It referred to the programme’s AO rating and time of broadcast, and said that the language used was part of the "Pantera persona"....

Summary Naked women were shown in promos for the programme The Making of the Human Body broadcast on TV One on 8 November, 9 November and 10 November 1998 between 6. 00–8. 00pm. Ms Hutchings complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the display of naked women in G or PGR time breached the standard requiring the observance of good taste and decency. In her view, it was not appropriate to show images of naked women when children were watching television. She also argued that it was discriminatory to show only naked women and no naked men. TVNZ noted that the promo included an extract from the opening sequence of each programme which showed men and women of every age, many of whom were naked....

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – “channel-surfing” segment – brief shot of “viewer’s” hands masturbating a penis-shaped dildo in front of the television – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – penis was obviously not real – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10pm on TV2 on 16 November 2007, contained a segment in which a “viewer” channel-surfed through a number of television programmes, some fabricated. The segment was constructed from the viewer’s point of view, so that the audience could see only the viewer’s hands. On three occasions, the viewer changed the channel to TV3, which was screening the breakfast show Sunrise. Each time, the viewer’s hands were shown doing something in the foreground....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item – visit to Wellington by Prince Charles – two topless women protesters shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item not harmful to children – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 8 March 2005 reported on the visit to Wellington by Prince Charles. The item included a public function which had been disrupted by two women protesters, both of whom were topless. Complaint [2] Alexander Watts complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had not maintained standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency or children’s interests....

Paula Rose declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A panel segment during Larry Williams Drive discussed a recent High Court action brought by Phillip Smith against the Department of Corrections (Corrections), in which Mr Smith argued that his freedom of expression had been breached by Corrections staff preventing him from wearing his toupee. At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Mr Williams stated: ‘I say Janet, solitary confinement 24/7, dark room, with his toupee, with a little bit of waterboarding just to make it interesting’. The other panellists laughed, with one commenting, ‘You’re a hard man, Larry’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the rescue of an American woman who had been held captive as a sex slave by a serial killer for two months in South Carolina. The item featured newly-released footage of the woman’s rescue, and showed her chained to the wall of a shipping container by her throat. The item also featured footage of the woman’s appearance on the American talk show, Dr Phil, during which she discussed her kidnapping. The item was preceded by the following verbal audience advisory: ‘A warning: some viewers may find our next story disturbing’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this audience advisory was inadequate given the nature of the footage, which was violent, inappropriate for children and further breached the featured woman’s privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on The Country featured the host interviewing The Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern not long after she began her term as Prime Minister. Towards the beginning of the interview the host asked the Prime Minister, ‘Do you wake up and say to yourself, “Holy shit! I’m Prime Minister! ” and have to pinch yourself? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host’s comment breached community norms of good taste and decency and was discriminatory. Taking into account relevant contextual factors including low level of offensive language used, the light-hearted tone, and audience expectations, the broadcast did not threaten community norms of good taste and decency, or justify restricting freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two Entertainment Tonight episodes, classified PGR, were broadcast prior to children’s programme Sticky TV, which was classified G. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the Entertainment Tonight episodes contained content that was unsuitable for children, and that PGR programmes such as this should not be broadcast immediately prior to children’s programming. Taking into account the context of the broadcast, the Authority found the Entertainment Tonight episodes were within audience expectations of the programme and the PGR classification. The episodes did not contain any strong or adult content, particularly during the transition to Sticky TV, and would not have adversely affected any child viewers when subject to adult supervision. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] Two Entertainment Tonight episodes, classified PGR, were broadcast prior to children’s programme Sticky TV, which was classified G....