Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport – talkback programme – caller criticised the Kiwi rugby league team – host responded “get your head out of your arse”Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Saturday 7 January 2006, at approximately 11. 35am, the host of a sports talkback programme responded to a caller’s criticism of the Kiwi rugby league team by commenting “get your head out of your arse”. Complaint [2] Mr Steel complained about the use of the phrase “get your head out of your arse”. Principles [3] TRN assessed the complaint under Principle 1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, which provides: Principle 1 In programmes and their presentation, broadcasters are required to maintain standards which are consistent with the observance of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – showed magazine photograph which reported that celebrities Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson had moved into a flat together – photograph included women’s Chihuahua dogs – presenter said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together” – allegedly offensive, unfair and deceptiveFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10. 00pm on 5 April 2005, referred to an issue of New Zealand Woman’s Weekly featuring a photograph of celebrity flatmates Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson, and their pet dogs. The presenter referred to the dogs and said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together”. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unfair to the named celebrities....

Complaint Mo Show – interview with makers of and participants in a pornographic film – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – gratuitous sexual activities – uphold Standard 9 – not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The making of a pornographic film near Los Angeles was shown in a segment of the Mo Show broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 3 September 2002. The Mo Show is targeted at a young adult audience and features two New Zealand comedians presenting events they encounter in a number of countries, focusing on popular music and film. [2] Lois Durward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment about pornographic film-making near Los Angeles was offensive and unsuitable for younger viewers....

ComplaintThe Sopranos – scene in which man attacks and kills pregnant woman – offensive – violence against woman and unborn baby – horrific – unjustifiable – gratuitous FindingsStandard G2 – unacceptable material – uphold Standard V1 – scene not essential or justifiable in context of programme – uphold Standard V2 – realistic violence used gratuitously for heightened impact – uphold Standard G8 – subsumed This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Sopranos was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 6 September 2001. The Sopranos is a drama about an American-Italian mafia family living in the eastern United States. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a scene in which a pregnant woman is beaten and killed, which he considered breached standards relating to good taste and decency, violence and appropriate classification....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintThe Craft – film – theme witchcraft and sorcery – evil and violent – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – warning – AO – fantasy theme – acceptable in context Standard V1 – minimal violence – neither gratuitous nor prolonged – justifiable in context Standard V16 – warning – 8. 30pm – broadcaster mindful of effect This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Sorcery and witchcraft were themes in the film The Craft which was broadcast on TV2 on 28 October 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm. Mark Singh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that "the evil and violent content" of the programme was unacceptable. He expressed concern about its impact on younger viewers. In its response, TVNZ emphasised that the film was a fantasy thriller which was quite divorced from reality....

Complaint60 Minutes – interview with swimmer Trent Bray – allegations of steroid use – unfair to interviewee – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – swimmer given opportunity to tell his side of the story – not treated unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Swimmer Trent Bray, who had tested positive to a performance-enhancing drug, was interviewed on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 26 March 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. In an emotional sequence, he denied the allegation. J B Meiklejohn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inexcusable and unjustifiably insensitive to broadcast footage of the swimmer "incoherent in grief". In its response, TVNZ advised that the swimmer had not been coerced into participating in the interview, and had been aware of the scope of questions to be asked....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on the final stages of a court case in Auckland, known as the ‘Dome Valley’ kidnapping, in which a young woman was kidnapped, beaten, sexually violated and left to die by a group of her former friends. The reporter outlined the events of the kidnapping and the item featured segments of the victim giving evidence (with her voice disguised) via audio-visual link from another room in the closed court. The reporter and the victim outlined her assault and injuries in some detail. No audience advisory was broadcast....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Breakfast, in which the hosts and viewer feedback discussed people stealing at supermarket self-service checkouts by putting in the wrong code for items they are purchasing. The Authority found the programme did not actively encourage viewers to steal or break the law in breach of the law and order standard. Across the programme as a whole, the hosts and viewers offered a range of views on the ethics of stealing at self-checkouts, including strong views against such behaviour, and clearly acknowledged it was ‘theft’ and illegal. The tone of the discussion was consistent with audience expectations of Breakfast and its hosts, and would not have unduly offended or distressed viewers, so the good taste and decency standard was also not breached....

The Authority has upheld complaints from two complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthak Vichar, broadcast on Access Community Radio Inc (Planet FM). During the programme, the hosts made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding their fundraising activities and whether they were trustworthy, and played a recorded phone conversation with Jaspreet Singh on-air. The Authority found that the comments reflected negatively on the complainants, and that Jaspreet Singh would not have known that the phone call would be played on-air. The Authority upheld the complaint under the fairness standard but did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of a weekly mixed martial arts championship highlights and commentary programme, MMA: One Championship Weekly, was broadcast on TVNZ DUKE at 8. 30am on Saturday 15 April 2017. The primary focus of the episode was a build-up to an upcoming match between Eduard Foyalang and Ev Ting scheduled for 21 April 2017. The episode profiled each of the fighters with reference to their backgrounds and family life. It also included 5-6 minute clips of their previous fights against other opponents. Mr Dandy complained that the use of footage from MMA fights was offensive and inappropriate to broadcast at a time when children may be watching television unsupervised....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Afternoons with Wendyl Nissen with a journalist, about an article she had written regarding the upcoming perjury trial of the secret witnesses who testified in David Tamihere’s murder trial. During the interview the journalist discussed the discovery of one victim’s body, saying, ‘you think of a body turning up… it’s really… bones. The trampers who found [the] body actually stepped on it before they saw it. ’ Ms Nissen replied: ‘So there was a crunch’, adding, ‘– sorry to be disgusting’. A complaint was made that this comment was ‘disgusting, disrespectful’ and ‘in poor taste’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During three items on Newshub, interviewees used potentially offensive language, including ‘piece of piss’ and ‘shit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that multiple instances of allegedly ‘foul language’ during a news programme were unacceptable. The Authority emphasised that the expressions reflected the interviewee’s choice of language to convey their response to the issues discussed, and were not abusive or directed at any individual. The Authority recognised that in our diverse New Zealand society, people may communicate using different kinds of language, and this will usually be acceptable so long as standards are maintained. In the context of a news programme aimed at adults, and items which carried relatively high value in terms of public interest and freedom of expression, the Authority was satisfied that the language would be unlikely to cause widespread undue offence among the general audience....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A participant on 'The Panel' during Afternoons with Jim Mora made comments about men wolf whistling at women, such as 'bring back the wolf whistle', 'a whistle is not harassment', 'a lot of women are the ones that haven't been whistled at, that have got a problem with it' and 'we are the peacocks, you guys are the ones that look at us'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast condoned and encouraged sexual harassment of women, as the panellist's comments were clearly her own opinion and did not reach the level of offensiveness required to find a breach of the relevant standards....

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. ]The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referring to phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times as an exclamation when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language breached broadcasting standards. It would not have offended a significant number of viewers or adversely affected any children who might have been watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referencing phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup – for example, ‘by God they are playing well’. [2] Craig Davie complained that Mr Henry used ‘foul language’ and was ‘taking the lord’s name in vain’, which was offensive and unsuitable for children....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Carrie Diaries – teen drama series contained sexual references and innuendo – allegedly in breach of the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – episode’s depiction of sexual content was inexplicit and discreet – would not have offended or distressed most viewers, including supervised children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests in screening the episode during children’s viewing times, given its PGR classification and specific pre-broadcast warning – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of The Carrie Diaries, an American teen drama series loosely based on the book and TV series Sex and the City, contained sexual references and innuendo....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, the host Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller, the complainant, who went by the name of ‘Alex’. He said ‘back in 17-something… I’d meet him on the beach as the sun came up and I’d potentially kill him or let him kill me in a duel’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host had made a ‘veiled death threat’ against the complainant. It was clear the host was not making a serious death threat, but was using provocative, metaphorical language to express his strong views about the complainant. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller who went by the name of ‘Alex’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-164:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-164 PDF362. 98 KB...