Search Rapua

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....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Orange Roughies – promo – used words “for Christ’s sake” – allegedly blasphemous and derogatory of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – distinct different dictionary meanings of “Christ” - context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration – high threshold not reached – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A promo for the forthcoming drama series Orange Roughies was broadcast on TV One on a number of occasions in mid May 2006. In one of the brief sequences included in the promo, one of the characters exclaimed “you’re married for Christ’s sake! ” as he walked past a parked car containing a husband and wife apparently having sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – character used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Facelift, a satirical programme which lampooned politicians and other high profile New Zealanders, screened on TV One at 10. 05pm on 19 September 2005. On this occasion, Facelift ridiculed television coverage of the election results two nights earlier. The character playing TV One’s political editor, Mark Sainsbury, used the words “Jesus” and “Christ”. Complaint [2] Brian Stratford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character had used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” as exclamations. He considered that this was blasphemous and offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Pirates – hosts discussed the act of people photocopying their naked bottoms on the office photocopier – one of the hosts photocopied his bottom on the radio station's photocopying machine and encouraged listeners to do the same – host invited listeners to exchange photocopies with him via facsimile – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – hosts' actions were inoffensive and harmless – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Morning Pirates breakfast show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Audience poll on Classic Hits – discussed whether or not the listeners would be interested in watching an execution – alleged breach of good taste and decencyFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – no obscene language or content – context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a broadcast in Blenheim on Classic Hits on 9 September 2004 at 4. 30pm the announcer ran a poll asking whether or not the audience would be interested in watching an execution. [2] He introduced the segment by explaining that he had dreamt about watching an execution, and commented that there were many examples of people watching executions in the past. [3] The announcer then asked if listeners would go and watch a legal execution....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 67 /94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GORDON COPELAND of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 106/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANCIS FISCHER of Dipton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-188 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET CHAPMAN of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummarySome words which were pronounced in the same way but had different meanings were discussed on the children’s programme You and Me, broadcast on TV3 at about 3. 25pm on 30 July 1998. "Chairs" and "cheers" were given as one such pair. Mr Gibson complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that these words should be pronounced differently, and that the programme’s effort to suggest otherwise breached the standards relating to good taste and balance. In response to the complaint, TV3 did not accept that the good taste standard was in question. As for balance, it said that viewers were advised that the words sounded the same, not that they were pronounced the same, and it declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Gibson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary An episode of It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, based around a fictional troupe of British soldiers in Burma in World War II entertaining fellow soldiers on stage, included a number of "Indian" characters. The episode was broadcast on Prime TV on 2 May 1999 at 8. 05 pm. Mr Theodore complained to Prime Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the episode portrayed Indian people as inherently inferior, that a white actor wearing brown make-up to impersonate an "Indian look and accent" breached norms of decency and good taste, and that the broadcaster had failed to inform viewers of the accuracy of factual matters raised in the episode. Prime TV responded that the programme was not factual, and that within the context of its farcical approach it had not breached norms of taste or decency....

Summary An episode of Hollywood Sex, a two-part series dealing with the sex industry in Hollywood, was broadcast on TV2 on 2 September 1999 beginning at 9. 30pm. Rosemary McElroy, on behalf of Women Against Pornography, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that in spite of the warning preceding the programme, the average adult viewer would not have expected what she described as the degree of "pornographic" content which it contained. She contended that the programme breached accepted norms of good taste and decency, and cited several examples of what she considered to be objectionable material. TVNZ noted that various aspects of the sex industry had been depicted, and that the emphasis had been on the curious and grotesque. While the nature of the sexual activity discussed had been indicated, there had been no scenes of sexual intercourse or any full frontal nudity, it observed....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings (1) 5 August broadcast – no uphold(2) 6 August broadcast – no uphold (3) 7 August broadcast – no uphold (4) 10 August broadcast – reference to wanking unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold (5) 11 August broadcast – discussion with child character about pornography – unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold(6) 21 August broadcast – gratuitous use of "fuck" – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7b – unsuitable for children – uphold; discussion about plasticine penis – no uphold; mocking of homosexuals – Principle 1 – uphold;…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989True Stories Uncut: Tantastic – contained shots of naked man – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was not titillating or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary titled True Stories Uncut: Tantastic was broadcast on Prime Television at 9. 35pm on Friday 30 January 2009. The programme spoke to a number of people, described as “tanorexics”, who were obsessed with tanning, either naturally or through the use of sun beds or spray tans in salons. [2] At approximately 9. 55pm, the programme featured a middle-aged man who liked to sunbathe naked. He was shown undressing then lying naked in his backyard, mowing the lawns naked, and then walking down a beach naked....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback – complainant expressed opposition to proposal for crematorium in Waikanae – host frequently interrupted with questions and criticisms – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, unfair, and denigrated the elderly Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – not applicable – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – range of views advanced – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not unfair in robust talkback environment – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The proposal to build a crematorium in central Waikanae was an issue on the talkback session hosted by Justin du Fresne on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 4 December 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that two sex scenes in Nip/Tuck were too explicit for free-to-air television and breached standards of good taste and decency. One of the scenes included a threesome involving one of the lead characters. The viewer also complained about the use of offensive language during another scene in which a "phone sex artist" discussed throat surgery with her doctor. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ argued that the scenes were acceptable in the context of an AO-rated programme screening at 9. 30pm with a warning for adult sexual material. The broadcaster said the sex scenes were important to the development of the storyline, did not contain any explicit nudity, and were not pornographic. The Authority’s DecisionAs well as the contextual factors noted above (the programme's AO classification, the warning about sexual content, the 9....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News segment called “The Week in Politics” – reference to Dr Don Brash (Leader of the National Party) travelling in a police convoy from Parliament to the Wellington Stadium – comment by presenter that he “could have walked, the lazy bugger eh! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – word “bugger” not in breach of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment not statement of fact – accuracy standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment called “The Week in Politics” was included in 3 News, broadcast on 23 July 2004, at around 6. 30pm....

ComplaintThe Edge – announcer makes anonymous call to woman – purports to be buying magazines – says has fetish for "shirtless Papua New Guinea women" – threatening and offensive – breach of good taste and decency FindingsPrinciple 1 – sinister – threatening – breach of good taste and decency – uphold OrderBroadcast of summary – costs of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a broadcast on The Edge on 17 October 2001 between 9. 30am and 10. 00am, one of the announcers telephoned a woman who was advertising National Geographic magazines, purporting to be a potential buyer. He told the woman he had a fetish for "topless Papua New Guinea women" and requested copies of the magazines carrying such pictures....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – news item about woman swept away in a flood – news reader laughed – offensiveFindingsPrinciple 1 – style of delivery of item offensive – apology inadequate – upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] A news item on Radio Pacific dealt with a woman who was swept away during a flood. The newsreader laughed as he read the item. [2] Glen Lee complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that laughter during an item about a human tragedy was offensive. [3] In response, The RadioWorks acknowledged that the item had been accompanied by laughter. It said that the hilarity followed a joke which had been told off-air during a preceding commercial break. However, it added, immediately after the laughter, an announcer apologised. [4] Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response, Mr Lee referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....