Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

ComplaintNews item about magazine for divorced people – offensive behaviour – picture of nude couple having sex FindingsStandard G2 – not inappropriate subject matter – momentary image – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Divorced people were providing a new market for entrepreneurs in the magazine industry, according to a news report on One News broadcast on 28 September 2000 at about 6. 20pm. Pages which were shown from a magazine included a picture of an apparently nude couple. Glenyss Barker, secretary of Viewers for Television Excellence (VOTE), complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the picture, which she said showed a nude couple having sex. She said it was inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children would be watching television....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – The Justin du Fresne Show – joke arising from controversy over Prime Minister’s allegedly speeding motorcade. FindingsPrinciple 1 (Good taste and decency) – obvious attempt at humour – no bad language used – not personal attack on Prime Minister – not upheld Principle 7 (Social responsibility) – obvious attempt at humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On The Justin du Fresne Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 19 July 2004, presenter Justin du Fresne told a joke arising from the earlier controversy over the Prime Minister’s allegedly speeding motorcade....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for the latest season of 7 Days showed comedians featured on the programme preparing the show’s host for the ‘potentially hostile environment’, by heckling and pelting him with objects. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promo trivialised the issue of bullying. The promo was a parody sketch of the type of heckling typically made by contestants during an episode of 7 Days, and common to live comedy programmes of this genre. It sought to recreate this live comedy environment in a humorous, satirical and highly exaggerated way, and in this context, the promo did not condone, encourage or trivialise bullying behaviour....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about a promo of The Project as the complainant is responsible for identifying the programme the subject of his complaint1 and his complaint did not appear to relate to the identified broadcast content. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that reality dating show Naked Attraction, broadcast after 10pm on TVNZ 2, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, potential love interests are introduced by gradually revealing their naked bodies, from the feet up (un-pixelated). With reference to previous decisions on earlier episodes of the programme, the Authority found that while the programme may not have been to everybody’s taste, ample information was available to enable viewers to make a different viewing choice. In the context there was no harm caused which justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-002 Dated the 29th day of January 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WING-YAU YEE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO i98FM LIMITED S Maling Chairperson L Loates R McLeod...

SummaryTwo consecutive episodes of Shortland Street contained a story-line about a nine-year-old boy, previously diagnosed with leukaemia, suffering a relapse and needing further medical treatment. His "mother" was shown receiving medical advice that his chances of survival with a bone marrow transplant were about one in ten. In the next episode, the child was shown bleeding profusely from mouth and nose, because his blood was not clotting properly. The episodes were broadcast on TV2 on 29 and 30 April 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. L D Percy complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the portrayals had a frightening impact on family and child viewers, particularly children who had returned to normal lives after receiving treatment for leukaemia. The depictions should only have been shown in an AO-rated programme, if at all, L D Percy wrote....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-026 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DIANNE BROWNE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-036 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ARCHIE DIXON of Whangarei Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Friends featured Rachel discussing a dream in which she and Chandler had sex, and later telling the group she had a dream about her, Chandler and Joey. Monica was dating Ethan, who claimed to be a senior in college and revealed that he was a virgin. The couple were shown kissing on the couch and then lying in bed together, when it was revealed that Ethan was in fact a senior at high school. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this episode breached the good taste and decency standard by containing sexual material unsuitable for children at the broadcast time of 4. 30pm. Any visual sexual content was implied and verbal references to sex amounted to innuendo which was unlikely to be understood or imitated by younger viewers....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-050:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-050 PDF632. 24 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In a ‘Showbiz news’ segment on MORE FM Breakfast, a joke was made about the marriage breakup of Kim Dotcom and his wife. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the joke breached standards of good taste and decency. It was light-hearted and humorous and typical of breakfast radio, and the Dotcoms could reasonably expect some coverage of their breakup. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] In the ‘Showbiz news’ segment on MORE FM Breakfast, one of the hosts made a joke about the marriage breakup of Kim Dotcom and his wife. The comments were broadcast on MORE FM on 19 May 2014 at 7. 30am. [2] Colin Foster made a formal complaint to MediaWorks Radio Ltd (MediaWorks), arguing that the comments were inappropriate for a public media platform....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Aquarius, shown during Seven Sharp, included a brief shot of a partially clothed injured male character surrounded by female characters tending his wounds. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the ‘sexualised’ promo was inappropriate for a time when children could be watching television. The promo did not depict any sexual activity or full nudity, and the shot complained about was fleeting and indistinct. The content was consistent with expectations of a PGR classification and the host news and current affairs programme, and any child viewers would have likely been supervised by adults. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Aquarius, shown during Seven Sharp, included a brief two-second shot of a partially clothed injured male character surrounded by female characters tending his wounds....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a Gospel Hour programme on Radio Voqa Kei Viti Aotearoa, a Fijian language station, the announcer used the term ‘iTaukei’ in her greetings to listeners, which the broadcaster submitted referred to the indigenous Fijian population in New Zealand and elsewhere overseas. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the term ‘iTaukei’ meant ‘owner’ in English (and therefore referred to New Zealand Māori), and that use of this term caused division and unrest amongst the station’s Fijian listeners. The Authority found that, while the announcer’s use of the term may be seen by some as divisive and politically-charged, it was not offensive, incorrect or discriminatory to an extent that would justify the Authority intervening and finding a breach of broadcasting standards, and as a result limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp the presenter Hilary Barry welcomed a temporary presenter, Matt Chisholm, who responded by saying ‘it’s bloody good to be here’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘bloody’ breached the good taste and decency standard, finding the use of the term in the context of this programme was not inappropriate or unnecessary. The Authority has consistently found this expression to be colloquial language commonly used as an exclamation in our society. The Authority noted that Seven Sharp is aimed at adult viewers and the expression was not intended to be aggressive or pejorative. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm by the use of this term did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a promo for Taranaki Hard. The Authority found the item was within audience expectations for a promo shown during an unclassified news programme. It did not actively promote or glamorise illegal behaviour nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence or cause harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...