Search Rapua

ComplaintStrassman – fuck – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – assessment of context required by standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits bordered on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 5 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Grant Nesdale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. He argued that television should "upgrade" values, rather than denigrate them. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It also said that television’s role was to reflect society’s values....

ComplaintNine to Noon – interview with Linda Clark – blasphemy – "Christ" – offensive language FindingsPrinciple 1 – community generally would not find offensive – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview with Linda Clark, formerly Television New Zealand Ltd’s political editor, on Nine to Noon was rebroadcast on The Best of Nine to Noon at around 6. 45pm on National Radio on 22 December 1999. Rev Campbell complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interviewee had used the word "Christ" as an exclamation. He considered that the language breached broadcasting standards requiring good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News at 8pm – newsreader used the phrase, “Christ that hurt” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – viewers may have considered the comment mildly inappropriate in the context of a news programme – but was clearly intended to be humorous – within broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on TVNZ News at 8pm, broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 8pm on Tuesday 12 July 2011, reported on the birth of a 16-pound baby in Texas, named Ja. During the item, the newsreader commented, “Ja means, ‘Christ that hurt’....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-023 Decision No: 1998-024 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by J of Palmerston North Broadcaster 92. 2XS (Palmerston North) S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 39/95 Dated the 29th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILIP MORRISON of Timaru Broadcaster RADIO OTAGO LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-072 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY of Auckland Broadcaster ACCESS COMMUNITY RADIO AUCKLAND INC S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint Coca-Cola Chart Show and Coca-Cola RTR Countdown – music videos – sexual themes offensive – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 7, Guideline 7a – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a and 9d – no disturbing material – no uphold; Guidelines 9c and 9i – irrelevant – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Music videos Kiss Kiss, Hot in Herre and Are You In? were broadcast on TV2’s Coca-Cola RTR Countdown at 6. 00pm on 20 July 2002 and on the Coca-Cola Chart Show at 10. 00am on 21 July 2002. [2] Tina Swenson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the music videos were sexually explicit, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP90-SW02 PDF980. 81 KBComplaintScream – movie – breach of good taste – glamorised criminal activity – inappropriately classified AO – broadcaster not mindful of effect on child viewers – broadcaster did not exercise care and discretion regarding violenceFindings(1) Standard 9, Guideline 9b – gruesome and horrific violence – scene at 8. 45pm – uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a, 9c, 9e and 9f – subsumed(2) Standard 1 – no uphold(3) Standard 2 – no uphold(4) Standard 7, Guideline 7a – no uphold(5) Standard 10, Guidelines 10a, 10b and 10f – horror film – included elements of parody – violence highly unrealistic – no upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Scream is a teen horror movie which parodies the horror movie genre. The movie was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 18 January 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – (1) racist remarks – offensive language; (2) denigrated Maori FindingsNo tape provided – unable to determine complaint on merits Principle 8 – relevantOrderCosts of $250 to the complainant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Talkback host John Banks was reported to have made critical references to the contribution by Maori to the millennium celebrations in New Zealand in a programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 17 January 2000 between 8. 15–8. 50am. Hohepa Campbell complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that the host’s comments were offensive and anti-Maori and incited racial disharmony. As he did not receive a response from The RadioWorks within the statutory time frame, he referred the matter to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintAssignment – preview of following week’s item of state of New Zealand railways – interviewees use words "bugger" and "shit-house" – breach of good taste and decency FindingsS. 4(1)(a) – language acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The closing segment of Assignment broadcast on TV One on 18 October 2001 at 8. 30pm previewed an item to be broadcast the following week about the state of New Zealand’s railways. One of the interviewees used the word "bugger" and another used the word "shit-house". [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of the language was "deliberate gutter television" and contrary to good taste and decency....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – light-hearted commentary on a TV3 presenter’s telephone call to Wellington High Court about Justice Ron Young who was hearing TV3’s appeal against some decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Holmes presenter (Paul Holmes) said that TV3’s presenter (John Campbell) had been getting it “up the chutney” at the appeal hearing – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldObservation When complaint referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) in which there is doubt whether broadcaster has had the opportunity to investigate the complaint, the Authority will clarify processes with the broadcaster before formal action initiatedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about "virtually blind" producer – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's comments were light-hearted and intended to be humorous – directed at one individual rather than blind people in general – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 April 2009, the hosts apologised for a noise that had occurred in the background while the news was being read. One host explained that the noise was caused by the executive producer "who's virtually blind". The host elaborated, mimicking the producer trying to read viewers' faxes, and also making a lot of noise taking a plate to the hosts as he could not see the table....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the movie Fifty Shades Darker was in breach of standards because it glorified a manipulative and abusive relationship. The Authority found viewers were sufficiently informed about the nature of the content to enable them to manage their own viewing. The movie did not contain any content that would go beyond audience expectations for the classification and timeband, especially given the well-publicised nature of the movie. The movie did not encourage violent or law-breaking activity. Finally, the Authority also found that people who engage in BDSM (a sexual practice that involves the use of physical control, psychological power, or pain) are not a recognised group for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about multiple images of needles and vaccinations being performed shown in two Newshub Live at 6pm items reporting on COVID-19. The Authority found the images were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. There is a high public interest and value in news reporting about the vaccination programme. In the context of a news item, the images would not adversely affect child viewers. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Good taste and decency, Children’s interests, Balance...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that use of the term ‘wanker’ was inappropriate and offensive in breach of the good taste and decency standard. Taking into account the relevant contextual factors, the use of the term was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a good taste and decency complaint that the treatment of a clip showing a ‘devastating’ explosion in Lebanon was inappropriate in a segment rounding up ‘all the crazy, messed-up oddities’ of the week. The context and the importance of freedom of expression meant there was no harm justifying regulatory intervention in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency; Discrimination and Denigration...