Search Rapua

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. On 15 March 2019 a special 1 News broadcast covered the terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. The broadcast featured footage of victims being taken into hospital, many of whom had visibly sustained gunshot injuries and/or were identifiable. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the coverage breached the privacy standard. The Authority found that media coverage of this event had high public interest in light of the unprecedented nature of extreme violence that occurred. The media had an important role to play in informing the public of events as they unfolded, including the nature and scope of injuries suffered and the action of first responders, including medical personnel. The Authority acknowledged that the repeated use of footage of identifiable victims amounted to a breach of privacy but found that the public interest defence applied....

The Authority has upheld a complaint about a broadcast of The DailyMail TV, finding that footage broadcast during the programme was inappropriate for the PGR classification and time of broadcast, and required an audience advisory for disturbing content. The programme was broadcast at 3. 30pm on a weekday, and featured partially censored footage of an American stabbing victim in the moments before she died. While the woman’s injuries were blurred, her distressed facial expression and blood splatters on the floor were visible. A second story featured censored footage of two 19-year-old women who claimed they had been drugged, filmed inside a bar naked and allegedly performing sex acts. The Authority found that this content went beyond what could be expected from a PGR-classified programme broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times and that the programme should have been classified AO – Adults Only....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the second part of a two-part documentary, Leaving Neverland, concerning sexual abuse allegations made by two men against Michael Jackson. The Authority took into account the nature of the programme, which was clearly presented from the perspectives of the two men featured and included responses to these and similar allegations, from Michael Jackson and his lawyers. In this context, the Authority found: the broadcast would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress as contemplated under the good taste and decency standard; the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not address a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ for New Zealand viewers; the programme was unlikely to mislead viewers and did not breach the accuracy standard; and the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Hunter Adventures featuring two groups of duck shooters in New Zealand. The episode included footage of people, including young people, using firearms, shooting ducks, celebrating successful shots, holding and plucking dead ducks, and showcasing hunting gear and equipment. Taking into account the relevant contextual factors including the programme’s classification, target audience and audience expectations, the broadcast did not breach the good taste and decency, children’s interests or violence standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the repetitive use of ‘fuck’ in an episode of 7 Days broadcast at 8. 30pm, breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. In this context, the language used would not have caused audiences undue offence or harm and it was not beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. The programme was adequately signposted to enable audiences to protect children. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two hosts on George FM Breakfast asked listeners to send in the names and profiles of female users of Instagram described as ‘do-nothing bitches’. The names of two women, A and B, were submitted. The hosts went on to comment extensively on A’s profile, making inappropriate and disparaging comments about her, and also contacted A and interviewed her on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks having found breaches of the fairness and good taste and decency standards was insufficient, and also found that the broadcast breached the privacy of both women....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item during a Newstalk ZB news bulletin featured an interview with Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder. The newsreader introduced the item by saying, ‘Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder believes their loss to the Highlanders is the kick up the backside they need. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘kick up the backside’ was rude, alluded to indecent assault and sexual abuse, and offended ‘community standards’. A ‘kick up the backside’ is a common, colloquial expression in New Zealand, meaning an unwelcome event or action that unexpectedly motivates or inspires. The expression would be well-known to listeners, who would not associate it with indecent or sexual assault. Therefore its use in this context did not threaten standards of good taste and decency....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on The Paul Henry Show featured the two presenters discussing recent law changes in Russia that mean it is now illegal to misrepresent Russia’s involvement in World War II, and that people would be fined for swearing on television, in theatre or in films. Mr Henry gave examples of Russian swearwords. There was also a discussion about ‘butt plugs’ made in the likeness of Vladimir Putin and of Paul Henry. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the language, the references to Russia’s involvement in the war, and the discussion about ‘butt plugs’ were offensive. The segment was on late at night and targeted at adults, it was intended to be light-hearted and was consistent with expectations of the show and of Paul Henry....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-063:Smits and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-063 PDF (366. 06 KB)...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-055:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-055 PDF429. 31 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-119:Miller and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1993-119 PDF437. 15 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-168:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-168 PDF319. 29 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about Russia’s proposal to use a controlled nuclear explosion to contain an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico – comment from expert from Auckland University – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard primarily concerned with sexual or violent material or coarse language – broadcast not likely to have offended listeners – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – light-hearted discussion – insufficient invective to encourage discrimination against or denigration of Russians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 4....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – contained conversations of a sexual nature and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 25 January 2008. The episode included conversations of a sexual nature, which came about by the host asking questions of the four contestants and then commenting on their answers. [2] An example of one such exchange was as follows: Host: (asking one of the three female contestants) Who out of Sharon and Sue has had sex with their partner’s big toe?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – contained a scene in which a character dreamed about a sexual encounter – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was classified PGR – no nudity – broadcaster was mindful of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Shortland Street, broadcast at 7pm on 31 May 2007, a scene showed two of the main characters, Maia and Mark, involved in a sexual encounter. The scene contained head-and-shoulder shots of both characters apparently having sex. The scene ended eight seconds later with the character Maia waking up and realising that the sexual encounter with Mark was just a dream....

Summary A promo for the Jo Brand programme included a "stand-up" comedy routine in which the comedian related how her mother warned her not to take sweets from old men. In relating the story, she used the expression "getting his knob out". The promo was broadcast on TV4 on 26 January 1999 at 7. 40pm during a PGR-rated programme. Mr Raffray complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used resulted in the broadcast of AO content during a PGR time-slot, without any warning, and during a programme which appealed to younger viewers. TV4 responded that the promo had a "hard PGR" rating which, it wrote, meant that it could not screen in programmes aimed at children. Because of the way the joke was told, the colloquial words were obscure enough not to be understood by younger viewers, it added....

Summary A representative of the Airline Pilots’ Association was interviewed on Holmes, broadcast at 7. 00pm on TV One on 2 September 1999, in connection with a strike by Ansett pilots. Mr Geddes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was biased, unbalanced and actively denigrated pilots involved in the dispute. He said he was appalled at the rudeness of the interviewer and his unprofessional, discourteous behaviour. TVNZ conceded that the interview could be described as "robust" but did not agree that it was rude or biased. The pilots’ representative was given full opportunity to respond on their behalf, it argued. It explained that, as management had declined to appear, balance was achieved by the presenter adopting a "devil’s advocate" position in order to prevent the item from becoming a chronicle of viewpoints from the Pilots’ Association....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host said that obese children “should be taken away from their parents and put in a car compactor” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the beginning of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 3 February 2009, the programme’s presenters outlined the upcoming items for the day. One host stated, “should obese children be taken away from their parents? That is what Australian experts are suggesting – well, some of them anyway. We’ll wade into the debate after 7”....