Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the introduction for a piece broadcast on RNZ Concert: ‘Being a coloured man wasn’t an advantage to 19th century English composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor. But he did, fortunately, have some influential supporters… so his music did get heard. ’ The complaint was that the description of the composer as ‘coloured’ perpetuated racism. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns and the changing nature of language over time. In this case, it found the description of the composer, in the context of the broadcast, did not encourage discrimination or denigration and was unlikely to cause offence at a level justifying restriction of the right to freedom of expression.   Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a Newshub Live at 6pm item on the Paralympics depicting a hug between sisters Lisa Adams and Dame Valerie Adams. The complaint was that the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests, and law and order standards as the Paralympics occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst various physical distancing restrictions were in force. The Authority found the item did not breach the standards specified as it did not encourage non-compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence, or harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Law and Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging footage during a Newshub Live at 6pm item showing a rugby league player throwing up on the side of the field during a match breached the good taste and decency standard. Taking into account the context of the broadcast, the Authority found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 156 /95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – footage from British reality series Sex Inspectors included a couple engaged in various sexual acts – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification and programme information standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – warning sufficient – not upheld Standards 2–6 and 8 – complaint based on mistake – not relevant – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 14 December 2004 the presenter of Eating Media Lunch on TV2 introduced a segment which was to feature in the following episode. Brief footage from a British reality series called Sex Inspectors was shown, including a couple engaged in various sexual acts....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Dexter promo – contained footage of upcoming episodes with themes of murder and torture – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo contained adult themes – incorrectly classified PGR – content warranted an AO classification – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo incorrectly classified – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 8 and 9 Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Holmes – interview with Prime Minister about refugees – reference to Nauru as a pile of bird shit – offensive language – inappropriate for school children FindingsStandard G2 – crude but acceptable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – minimal impact on children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Nauru was described as a "pile of bird shit" by the presenter on Holmes when interviewing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the Government’s decision to take 150 refugees from the Tampa. The item was broadcast on Holmes on 3 September 2001 beginning at 7. 00pm. [2] Alfred Howard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the phrase was totally inappropriate and offensive. He expressed particular concern that school children would hear the language....

ComplaintStrassman – ventriloquist – offensive language – fucking FindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – context relevant – freedom of expression – limitations must be justifiable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ventriloquist in Strassman, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 4 July 2000 used the phrase "I wish you had a fucking brain" when he spoke to one of his puppet characters. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of "gratuitous offensive language" contravened the Broadcasting Act's requirement for broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that Strassman was an adult comedy programme broadcast at 9. 30pm which carried an AO certificate and was preceded by a warning advising that it contained strong language. In that context, it did not consider that the language breached standard G2....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – Europe correspondent discussed 13-year-old boy who had allegedly fathered a child with a 15-year-old girl – reported that other boys had claimed there was a possibility they were the father – commented that the girl was “a bit of a goer” – presenter referred to the girl as a “slapper” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 7. 45am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 February 2009, one of the hosts interviewed TVNZ’s Europe correspondent, who provided a weekly round-up of topical European stories....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – contained conversations of a sexual nature and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 25 January 2008. The episode included conversations of a sexual nature, which came about by the host asking questions of the four contestants and then commenting on their answers. [2] An example of one such exchange was as follows: Host: (asking one of the three female contestants) Who out of Sharon and Sue has had sex with their partner’s big toe?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now – spoof of talent shows called "Fairytale's Got Talent" – guest judge said to Cinderella who was a contestant, "Next time I'm holding one of my balls, you're invited" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – child viewers would have understood the comment to be a reference to the Cinderella fairytale – comment did not go beyond the programme's G rating – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During What Now, broadcast on TV2 at 8am on Sunday 15 August 2010, the programme's hosts and two former New Zealand Idol judges, Paul Ellis and Frankie Stevens, participated in a spoof of television talent contests, called "Fairytale's Got Talent". A contestant, Cinderella, performed on the saxophone....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989LMFAO Video Hits – LMFAO song “Shots” broadcast at 7....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-010:Burbridge and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-010 PDF356. 93 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder broadcast at 7. 15pm during Shortland Street contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the sexual references in the promo were inappropriate for broadcast in this timeslot. The reference to oral sex was inexplicit, would not likely have been understood by most younger viewers and did not exceed expectations of the regular audience of the host programme, which frequently contains mature themes. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children's InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen as follows: Presenter: What might pineapple do to something in your body? Woman: Change the taste of your semen. . . ? Presenter: Have you given it a crack?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a Swedish historian and author. During the interview, the presenter allegedly quoted former Finance Minister, Sir Roger Douglas. At the end of the item, the presenter also read out negative and critical comments from listeners about the interview. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s statement, allegedly attributed to Sir Roger Douglas, was inaccurate, and that reading out the comments received was offensive. The statement was not a material point of fact in the context of the item and would not have affected listeners’ understanding of the item as a whole, which was focused on the views and work of the interviewee. Further, listeners were unlikely to have understood the statement to be a direct quote from the former Finance Minister, and would not have been misled....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the outbreak of a cattle disease on a farm in South Canterbury. The item featured an interview with a farmer who used the expression ‘for Christ’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this expression was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times. The Authority found there was public interest and high value in hearing an authentic voice from a New Zealand farmer as part of the news report. The Authority also noted it has consistently found that variations of ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations, and in this case, the interviewed farmer used the phrase to express his frustration and strong support of the affected farm owner....