Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry read out a fan’s letter about her ‘lactating boobies’ and made sexually suggestive remarks about her. Later, he used the word ‘fucked’, and during a live cross a woman burst in front of the camera and said, ‘West side, fuck her in the pussy’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments were unsuitable for broadcast. Taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the broadcaster’s limited control over live content, the material did not reach the high threshold necessary to breach standards of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming Introduction [1] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry read out a fan’s letter about her ‘lactating boobies’ and made sexually suggestive remarks about her. Later in the programme he used the word ‘fucked’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge Afternoons with Guy, Sharyn and Clint the hosts ran a segment called ‘Shaz Dog’s Love Shack’, where listeners could text and call in to ask for advice on love and relationships. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that ‘a discussion of sexual positions’ breached standards. The segment was consistent with the style of content and humour regularly broadcast on The Edge, and was unlikely to surprise or offend the target audience of 15- to 39-year-olds. Most of the content was in the nature of sexual innuendo and would have gone over the heads of younger listeners....

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-002:Dorf and Television New Zealand Ltd - ID1992-002 PDF59. 04 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-065:Boscott and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-065 PDF191. 79 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-162:Baker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-162 PDF230. 63 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-002:Bartlett and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-002 PDF307. 38 KB...

SummaryA programme in the Documentary New Zealand series entitled "Hell for Leather" was broadcast on TV One on 14 June 1999 at 8. 30pm. It examined the fortunes of a footwear company managed by a prominent Maori businesswoman, as it struggled to avoid closure. Staff and management were seen to be severely stressed by the prospect of the business collapsing. Mr Christensen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used in a sequence where the manager and her staff were engaged in heated discussions regarding the company’s future. In his view, the language was unacceptable for broadcast, and should have been edited out. TVNZ responded that it considered the sequence to be important for contextual reasons as it revealed the extent of the strain the people were under....

ComplaintComedy Season Promo – edited clips from nine comedy programmes – footage from Sex and the City unsuitable for broadcast during children’s programming – breach of good taste – broadcaster not mindful of children – explicit material unacceptable FindingsStandard G2 – promo did not breach currently accepted norms of good taste and decency – no uphold Standard G12 – not G material – broadcaster not mindful of promo’s effect on children – uphold Standard G24 – not "explicit material" as envisaged by the standard – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary 1] TV3 promoted its Comedy Season with a montage of clips from various comedy programmes. The promo, which lasted 60 seconds, included clips from 3rd Rock from the Sun, Will and Grace and Sex and the City, edited together....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-086 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J B WILLIAMSON of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Kaho Naa… Pyaar Hai (Say… You’re in Love), a Bollywood romantic thriller film, was broadcast on free-to-air television channel APNA TV between 3pm and 6pm. The film featured action scenes containing violence. The Authority upheld a complaint that the film breached a number of broadcasting standards. The film was broadcast unclassified and with an incorrect programme description, which meant audiences were unable to make an informed viewing choice and were unable to regulate their own, and their children’s, viewing behaviour. The film’s inclusion of violent imagery such as beatings, shoot-outs, murder and dead bodies, and the visual depiction of these acts occurring onscreen, warranted an AO classification and later time of broadcast on free-to-air television....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Shortland Street featured a character using the phrase (according to the accompanying closed captions), ‘You’ve got no freaking idea…’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this phrase breached the good taste and decency standard because in the complainant’s view, the character actually said ‘f***ing’. The Authority noted that if broadcasters wish to broadcast sanitised versions of unacceptable words, then it is their responsibility to make it clear that it is not the offensive word that is being uttered, but rather a word which is distinctly aurally different. Here, where there was some uncertainty about what was said, the Authority did not uphold the complaint....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two episodes of Story featured items about self-described ‘professional political campaigner’ Simon Lusk. In the first item, presenter Duncan Garner was shown hunting with Mr Lusk, and Mr Lusk apparently shot two deer. Excerpts of political figures being interviewed about their involvement with Mr Lusk, and of Mr Lusk discussing such involvement, were shown throughout the items. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the items were in breach of multiple broadcasting standards for the way Mr Lusk’s involvement in politics was reported and for featuring footage of deer hunting. The footage of the deer hunting was not so graphic or gratuitous that it would have offended a significant number of viewers, including child viewers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment called ‘The Huddle’ on the Larry Williams Drive Show, the host and two political bloggers discussed the candidates running for the Labour Party leadership. One of the bloggers referred to two politicians needing their ‘throat cut’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were inappropriate. The comments were brief, intended to be metaphorical, and acceptable in the context of a robust political discussion broadcast on Newstalk ZB. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] During a segment called ‘The Huddle’ on the Larry Williams Drive Show, the host and two political bloggers discussed the candidates running for the Labour Party leadership....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-093 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P F NOBLE of Mount Maunganui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-071 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LAWRIE MALATIOS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryA radio station announcer, claiming he was doing a survey on STDs, telephoned a woman and asked a number of personal and intimate questions. The call was broadcast live on The Edge on 30 November 1998 at about 4. 00pm. J, the woman who received the call, had identified herself using her first name and employer’s name. She complained to the station that the call was a serious invasion of her privacy as she was never told that the caller was from a radio station, or that it was being broadcast live. J said the comments ranged from being personal to obscene, and cited some examples. When the matter was referred to the station initially, J received an apology both from the station manager and the announcer....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....