Search Rapua

ComplaintKeeping Secrets – documentary – strip club - nudity – warning insufficient – offensive behaviour – not mindful of children Findings(1) Standard G2 – warning – 9. 30pm – AO – nudity not focus – no full frontal nudity – no uphold (2) Standard G12 – 9. 30pm not "normally accepted" children’s viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The documentary Keeping Secrets was broadcast on TV3 on 12 January 2000 at 9. 30pm. The documentary was about the opening of a second "Secrets" table dancing club in London. Kristian Harang complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast showed "strip club" scenes and nudity. He contended that the content transgressed broadcasting standards relating to good taste and decency and the protection of children....

ComplaintInside New Zealand: "Piercing – The Hole Story" – documentary – pierced genitalia displayed – offensive – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – piercing for body suspension – images beyond community standards – uphold; piercing of genitalia – majority – matter of fact – minority – gratuitous – no uphold; other aspects – context – no uphold Standard G12 – body suspension segment at start of programme – waterfall after 8. 30pm – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Piercing – The Hole Story" was the title of a documentary broadcast on the Inside New Zealand series on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 1 August 2001. It examined the practice of piercing navels and tongues among youth, and showed some more unusual piercings, including genital piercing and suspending by hooks through the flesh....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up promo – contained the word “fugly” to describe the appearance of a film character – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “fugly” used in a light-hearted and jovial manner – not used as a term of abuse – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A brief promo for Close Up was broadcast at 8. 33am during an episode of Breakfast and again at 3. 07pm during 60 Minute Makeover on Wednesday 7 April 2010. The promo discussed the new Nanny McPhee film starring Emma Thompson. [2] During the promo a voiceover said, “. . . Plus Oscar pro Emma Thompson on having to look fugly for film”, after which Ms Thompson was shown saying, “I really enjoy it....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-012:Wood and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1990-012 PDF452. 75 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed a controversial wall-hanging in a Puhoi Pub bearing the n-word, and included footage of the wall-hanging itself. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the good taste and decency standard by displaying the offensive term multiple times, when the item could have discussed the issue without doing so. The Authority noted the item censored verbal reference to the term by the pub’s owner, and was preceded by a verbal warning that ‘some viewers may find details in Jenny Suo’s story distressing’. It also noted the item’s footage of the wall-hanging was part of its critical examination of the issue, the offensive term was not depicted outside that context, and the broadcast carried significant public interest in creating an active public discourse....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-110 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W M MOORE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-076 Decision No: 1998-077 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALICE HALLIWELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummarySome highlights from mid-week programmes were played on 91. 9FM Napier on 15 November 1998, a Sunday afternoon. One extract contained the following exchange: "I work for Cunard", to which the reply was "I work fuckin’ ’ard too, but I still can’t afford a car like that! "Mr Leitch complained to the station that the extract was highly offensive. Not only was the extract broadcast live at some time during the week when there might have been an excuse that it "slipped through", he said, but it was repeated as something the broadcaster was proud of. The station responded that Mr Leitch’s comments had been duly noted and acted upon. It offered its apologies for any distress the broadcast might have caused him. Dissatisfied with the decision, Mr Leitch referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-028 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by V S PATRICK of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 37/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KIM TAYLOR of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 97/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Paul France declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – afternoon host made comments about Green Party MP Keith Locke – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – viewers would have realised comments were host’s and callers’ interpretation of Mr Locke’s stance – public figures are open to criticism – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Newstalk ZB’s afternoon show, broadcast between 1pm and 4pm on 5 January 2009, the host started a discussion about Green Party MP Keith Locke, saying: Keith Locke’s another one. He’s an apologist for terrorism....

ComplaintCourage Under Fire – film – blasphemy – offensive language – "Jesus fucking Christ"FindingsStandard G2 – context – AO classification and time of broadcast – warning – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The film Courage Under Fire was broadcast on TV3 on 21 May 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm. During a combat scene in the film, one of the characters was heard to say "Jesus fucking Christ". Brian Burlace complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used was blasphemous and offensive. TV3 explained that the programme was rated AO and had been preceded by a warning about its language. It also observed that the film had been edited to remove much of its coarse language....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with father of escaped prisoner – used words “arsehole” and “bugger” – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A father whose son had escaped from prison was interviewed in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 22 April 2004. The father, whose home had been burgled by his son on at least three occasions, appealed to his son to give himself up. During the interview, the father used the word “arsehole” and also used the word “bugger” at least three times. Complaint [2] Gary Welch and Don Campbell each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word “arsehole” was unacceptable and in breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency....

Complaint American Beauty – film - numerous sexual references – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9c – broadcaster was mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The film American Beauty was screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. The film is about a bored middle-aged man who becomes "love-struck" with one of his daughter’s friends. His fantasies lead him to turn his life upside down. [2] Murray Baylis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sexual references and sexual messages in the film would be offensive to many New Zealanders, especially to people aged 12 – 16 years....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Consumer Affairs, Radio Pacific – interview with Steve Crowe – covered a range of aspects of the adult entertainment industry – complainant alleged content was crass and morally reprehensible – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance and social responsibility Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – tone of discussion matter of fact – item broadcast at midday – show targeted at an adult audience – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – item did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – balance requirement did not apply – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – item did not encourage denigration – unlikely that children would have been listening – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....