Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

ComplaintPromo for Always Greener – bare buttocks masked by a "smiley face" – indecent – harmful to children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – masking device not offensive – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – not harmful to child viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A promo for Always Greener was broadcast on TV One at various times on 2 February 2003. A "smiley face" was used to cover the bare buttocks of a male character. [2] John Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the human form in this manner was offensive and harmful to children. [3] In response, TVNZ said the "smiley face" was attached so that the promo could be shown at any time. It declined to uphold the complaint that the masking breached broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – priest accidentally removed “Pope’s” head and sewed it back on – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An animated comedy series called Popetown centred around Father Nicholas, an idealistic young priest who lives in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown) with a group of corrupt cardinals and a pogo-stick riding infantile Pope....

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....

ComplaintBehind the Scenes – Ali G in da house – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The programme Behind the Scenes – Ali G in da house was broadcast on TV 2 at 10. 45pm on 16 July 2002. [2] Angela Niumata complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme included a sequence where the main character performed a suggestive and offensive act upon another character. [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said that in the context of adult comedy, the scene complained about did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Niumata referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintStepping Out – Documentary New Zealand – documentary about young urban Maori on hikoi in Far North – use of "fuck" and its derivatives – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – language used minimally – appropriate in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Documentary New Zealand: Stepping Out was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 9 October 2000. It followed six young urban Maori as they traced on foot a route taken by their ancestor Tohe down the west coast of the Far North. During the documentary, the words "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of such "grossly offensive language"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented with reference to ACT MP David Garrett, “He is a complete waster....

ComplaintThe Chimp Channel – animals trained to perform unnatural behaviours – bad taste – bad effect on children – insensitive FindingsStandard G2 – not in bad taste – no uphold Standard G12 – broadcaster apparently mindful of children – no uphold Standard V17 – animals not humiliated or badly treated – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The Chimp Channel was screened weekly on TV2 at 5. 30pm on Saturdays. It was a comedy series set in a television studio in which most of the actors were animals. Melanie Vivian complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was contrary to animal welfare for animals to be trained to perform "unnatural behaviours"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item on closure of Gardies, a well-known student pub in Dunedin – contained male nudity including genitalia – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – nudity was matter-of-fact and non-sexual – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10. 39pm on Friday 18 June 2010, reported on the closure of a well-known student pub in Dunedin, The Garden Tavern, known as Gardies. The reporter stated that nudity had been a “big chapter in the bar’s history”, and approximately one minute into the item a group of young men were shown playing nude rugby outside the bar. The men were filmed running towards the camera, exercising and stretching, with their genitalia visible....

SummaryThe film Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man was broadcast on TV2 on 7 October 1999, beginning at 11. 00pm. It was an action movie in which two men stole mob money to prevent their friend’s bar from being closed down. Laurie Collier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language and "gross violence" contained in the film breached broadcasting standards. In particular, he complained about the excessive use of the "f word" and what he called "the blood and guts violence". TVNZ’s informal response emphasised the relevance of context in ascertaining whether the language exceeded community expectations. When Mr Collier sought a review of TVNZ’s decision, it provided a more substantive response, again emphasising contextual factors. It noted that the film began at 11. 00pm, well into adult viewing time, that it was preceded by a warning, and that it was classified as AO....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

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 1989One News – item reported that a group of Australian teenage boys had filmed their attack of a teenage girl and were circulating the footage on DVD – showed some images of the boys’ attack – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, unfair, and in breach of children’s interests and the violence standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Standard 10 Standard 2 (Law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to teenage girl or homeless man – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to violent content – broadcaster did not consider the interests of children – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a joke made during the studio introduction to a report on a fire at The Great Western Racecourse in Victoria, Australia. The complainant alleged the comment ‘Well, the hottest tip in horse racing in Australia yesterday was “save your car from the flames” and it wasn't the name of a horse’ was mocking and in poor taste. The Authority found as the item itself was serious, no people or animals were hurt and the joke did not directly mock fire or property damage, it did not breach the good taste and decency standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of 20/20 aired on free-to-air television on a Sunday at 9am, covering the abduction of Steven Stayner and the subsequent murder of several women by Steven’s brother Cary Stayner, breached the children’s interests and good taste and decency standards. The Authority found that, while the broadcast discussed some potentially distressing themes and subject matter, such as rape, murder and kidnapping, viewers had sufficient information to enable them to make informed choices about whether they or children in their care should view the broadcast. The Authority highlighted the importance of audience expectations and target audiences in their determination and ultimately found any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-028:Bartlett (on behalf of the Society for Protection of Community Standards) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-028 PDF1. 26 MB...

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’....