Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a sex scene in Nip/Tuck in which one of the lead characters had sex with a patient after asking her to place a paper bag over her head was offensive, and should not have been shown at 10pm during the school holidays. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the sex scene was relatively discreet, and had showed a side view with no nudity. The broadcaster noted that Nip/Tuckwas rated Adults Only and had been restricted to a 9. 30pm showing because it contained a greater degree of sexual activity, potentially offensive language and realistic violence. The broadcaster argued that 9. 30pm was adults only time even during the school holidays. The Authority’s DecisionThe Authority said the scene was important to the storyline as it illustrated the central character's decline into sexual dysfunction....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Take – contained a scene in which a man and a woman were shown having sex on a chair – 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 a mini-series called The Take was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 18 October 2009. Twenty-two minutes into the episode, a brief scene of a man and a woman having sex on a chair was shown. The couple were fully clothed. [2] The programme was preceded by the following written and verbal warning: The following programme is rated Adults Only....

SummaryA BBC documentary entitled Ladies Night screened during Under Investigation on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 16 June 1998. The documentary concerned a male strip revue in the Welsh city of Swansea. Ms Wendy Atkinson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the documentary breached standards of good taste, and was entirely unsuitable for children and teenagers. TVNZ responded that the documentary was classified AO, had screened in an AO timeband, and that the introduction would have alerted viewers to the adult nature of the programme thus giving them the opportunity to decide not to watch. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Atkinson referred the 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. DecisionThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix)....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Outrageous Fortune – scene in which two actors have sex in a video store – scene in which male character was touching the female character in a sexual manner – 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 Outrageous Fortune, a comedy-drama series about a one-family crime wave trying to go straight, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on 14 November 2006. The episode was preceded by a warning which said: This programme is rated adults only and is recommended for a mature audience. It contains sexual material and language that may offend some people....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Martin Crump Late Night Live – stand-in host encouraged running over possums – complainant phoned the show and disagreed with the host – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and fairness standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – talkback is a robust forum – host’s comments were “tongue-in-cheek” and not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not Authority’s role to determine whether deliberately running over possums is a crime – two callers gave the view that it was irresponsible – host discouraged dangerous driving – broadcast did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was allowed more than two minutes to air his views – callers who disagree with a talkback host’s…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interview with former Breakfast presenter Paul Henry – questioned Mr Henry on his controversial remarks about the Chief Minister of Delhi – comments about the Chief Minister were re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on Paul Henry and his perspective on the various controversies in which he was involved – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – Paul Henry’s comments did not extend to a section of the community – interviewer challenged his views – interview did not encourage discrimination or denigration of Indian people – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments about the Chief Minister revisited in current affairs context – interview would not have…...

Complaint Issues 101 – gay movie – screened during gay television festival at 8. 30pm – scenes depicting oral and anal sex – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – depiction prolonged and graphic – offensive – majority upholdStandard 9 and Guidelines 9b and 9c – offensive scene broadcast before 9pm on Saturday – unsuitable for children – unanimous uphold OrderBroadcast of Statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Issues 101 was a film broadcast by Triangle Television Ltd at 8. 30pm on Saturday 1 March 2003. The film which was preceded by a warning, and classified AO, formed part of a gay television festival and included scenes depicting oral and anal sex....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on proposed brothel aimed at women – contained interview with owner – promo shown during One News – both item and promo allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo and item covered legitimate story – neither broadcast contained visuals of brothels or sex workers – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – focus of promo and item was Ms Corkery – neither contained a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] A promo for Close Up was broadcast during an episode of One News on TV One at 6. 25pm on Monday 16 August 2010....

ComplaintFor Richer or Poorer – movie – "fuck off" – offensive language – insufficient warning FindingsStandard G2 – language not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G8 – classification and time of screening appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary For Richer or Poorer was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 29 April 2001. For Richer or Poorer is a comedy movie about a rich couple who hide among the Amish to avoid pursuit by the tax department. During one scene, the wife tells her husband to "fuck off". Ken and Jackie Francis complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that the language was offensive, and that the warning for "coarse" language which had preceded the broadcast had been insufficient....

ComplaintFight For Life – charity entertainment including boxing and singing for The Yellow Ribbon Trust – one boxer asked if he had a “big knob” – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – contextual matters – majority – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Australian Mark Geyer was one of the boxers who participated in Fight For Life, a charity entertainment programme involving boxing, comedy, and singing for The Yellow Ribbon Trust, broadcast on TV3 between 7. 30–11. 00pm on 14 August 2003. Before his fight, Mr Geyer was asked whether he had a “big knob”. [2] Jean Lattin and Eardley Dijkstra each complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the question was offensive and improper. [3] In response, TV3 explained that the question was part of a live broadcast and unscripted and, given the time of the broadcast (10....

ComplaintThe Weakest Link – G rating – contestant said "pissed off" – offensive language FindingsStandard 1 and guideline a – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 and guideline a – context and use – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A celebrity edition of The Weakest Link was broadcast on TV One between 7. 40–8. 40pm on 6 January 2002. A contestant, Pam Corkery, said among her later final comments that she was "pissed off" at her inability to answer one specific question. [2] Gordon Hayes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that to include such language in a programme rated G was "absolutely disgusting". [3] In response, TVNZ described the phrase as a "mild vulgarism" which was not sufficiently offensive to breach current community standards, and that children who were still awake after 8....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fence Jumping – promo – documentary about gay men who “came out” when married – broadcast during One News beginning at 6. 00pm – allegedly offensive, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 and Guideline 7b (classification) – appropriately classified as G – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – homosexuality dealt with in straightforward way which was suitable for children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the documentary Fence Jumping was broadcast during One News at about 6. 30pm on Sunday 25 April 2004. The documentary was about men who, while married, realised that they were gay and how such men “came out”. The promo indicated the programme’s content....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Breakfast, in which the hosts and viewer feedback discussed people stealing at supermarket self-service checkouts by putting in the wrong code for items they are purchasing. The Authority found the programme did not actively encourage viewers to steal or break the law in breach of the law and order standard. Across the programme as a whole, the hosts and viewers offered a range of views on the ethics of stealing at self-checkouts, including strong views against such behaviour, and clearly acknowledged it was ‘theft’ and illegal. The tone of the discussion was consistent with audience expectations of Breakfast and its hosts, and would not have unduly offended or distressed viewers, so the good taste and decency standard was also not breached....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Dom, Meg and Randell breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that, while comments made on the show may have been distasteful to some, the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression includes the right to broadcast such material provided this does not cause undue harm. The Authority found that, given the well-established nature of the programme, the station and their target audience, listeners and particularly those with children in their care had sufficient information to make an informed decision about what they listened to. The Authority noted that the standards do not prohibit inexplicit sexual references or sexual innuendo during children’s normally accepted listening times, and it was likely that many of the references during this segment would have gone over the heads of child listeners....