Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Simpsons – use of the words “wanker” and “ass” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – PGR classification – PGR timeslot – words used in satirical rather than abusive manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Simpsons screened on TV3 at 7pm on 30 September 2004. At the beginning of the programme Homer Simpson described his favourite programme about a family of English soccer hooligans, saying “if they’re not having a go with a bird they’re having a row with a wanker”. [2] Later in the episode another character said “it’s a beautiful day to kick your ass”....

ComplaintSpace – interview with rock group Pantera – language – fuck – motherfucker – offensive – standard G2 upheld by broadcaster – warning acknowledged as inadequate – action taken to improve warnings FindingsDecline to determine – s. 11(b) – attempt by complainant to re-litigate conviction for use of obscene language under Telecommunications Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "Pantera", a heavy metal band, was interviewed on Space which was broadcast on TV2 on 11 May 2001 starting at 10. 25pm. Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language in a programme aimed at young people was obscene. In response, TVNZ noted that the interview included the words "fuck" and "motherfucker". It referred to the programme’s AO rating and time of broadcast, and said that the language used was part of the "Pantera persona"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Weekend Sport – host used the word “root” during a discussion about alleged sexual misconduct by a former All Black – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – host used a coarse colloquialism to convey a positive message – word “root” said in matter-of-fact manner – younger child listeners unlikely to understand subject matter of the conversation – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In a segment during Weekend Sport called “Six of the Best”, broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 5. 20pm on 10 July 2010, the hosts briefly discussed the resignation of former All Black Andy Haden as a Rugby World Cup ambassador after he was criticised for comments he made about alleged historical sexual misconduct by another former All Black....

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....

ComplaintZG FM Gisborne – offensive language – "eff–off" – "piss off" – reference to complainant on air FindingsPrinciples 1 and 7 – in context – no uphold Principle 5 – reference ambiguous – no uphold CommentBroadcaster’s complaints procedure and process for recording programmes unsatisfactory This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During the morning programme on 22 September 2000, an announcer on Gisborne’s ZG FM said "eff-off". On 20 October he said that by playing a certain song, he would "piss off" some colleagues. After a listener called the station to complain about his language, the announcer made reference to her complaint on 25 October, saying "I can’t say ‘piss off’ or Mrs Pascall will get hacked off about it....

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....

ComplaintLexus Sunday Theatre: Hound of the Baskervilles – Promo – Jesus Christ – blasphemy FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6a – did not encourage denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Jesus Christ" was the phrase uttered by a character shown in the promo for The Hound of the Baskervilles. The promo for the Sherlock Holmes drama, to be screened on "Lexus Sunday Theatre", was broadcast on TV One at about 7. 15pm on 31 May 2003. [2] Evan Swale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that use of the phrase "Jesus Christ" was denigratory, and insulting and offensive. [3] In response, TVNZ acknowledged that the use of the phrase in that way could cause offence to devout Christians....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-185 Decision No: 1997-186 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MARTIN DURHAM of Upper Hutt and MAARTEN GROEN of Lower Hutt Broadcaster CHANNEL Z Wellington S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997- Dated the th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D L HURNDELL of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintSpin Doctors Election Special – drama – public relations company, satirised while suggesting election campaign strategies – "piss-head" – offensive language – imitation vomit – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for older children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election special episode of Spin Doctors was broadcast at 9. 00pm on TV One on 10 July 2002. It satirised the staff of a public relations company as they were shown trying to put together election campaign strategies for a number of political parties. [2] Elaine Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about some of the language used and the behaviour depicted with reference to the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister deserved respect, not ridicule....

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – report on Cindy Crawford – item contained photos of her from Playboy magazine in which her breasts were shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards The Authority's DecisionStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – majority – item did not dwell on the pictures in a salacious way – the pictures were tasteful and relevant to the context of the item – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – photographs were an artful depiction of the female form – no emphasis was placed on Ms Crawford’s breasts – sufficient consideration given to the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs programmes are unclassified – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Madhouse – The Edge – host’s comments – men who use moisturiser do not necessarily “take it up the bum” – host’s “arse” so firm he could open a twist top stubby with his “butt cheeks” – various other comments – alleged breach of good taste and decencyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – comments crass and vulgar but did not reach threshold in context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Just before 6. 30am on 16 April 2004, one of the hosts of The Morning Madhouse on radio station The Edge asked listeners to telephone with the answer to the following question: “13% of men secretly do what? ”[2] The first caller suggested that they “shave their balls” and that “females don’t mind getting ‘down there’ and licking”....

SummaryA segment on consumer rights relating to boundary fences was included in Target broadcast on TV3 on 29 August 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. A brief shot of a man’s buttocks was seen in a skit performed by two actors. Dawn Shelford, on behalf of Preserving Communication Standards Trust Inc, complained that she and the members of her group found this segment objectionable. She said they did not consider it appropriate for this segment to have been included in a consumer rights programme as it was "a kind of titillation based on public indecency". TV3 responded that the 7-second view of the actor’s bare bottom was in its view acceptable in the context. It did not agree that the scene was objectionable and exceeded community standards of decency. It declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During three items on Newshub, interviewees used potentially offensive language, including ‘piece of piss’ and ‘shit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that multiple instances of allegedly ‘foul language’ during a news programme were unacceptable. The Authority emphasised that the expressions reflected the interviewee’s choice of language to convey their response to the issues discussed, and were not abusive or directed at any individual. The Authority recognised that in our diverse New Zealand society, people may communicate using different kinds of language, and this will usually be acceptable so long as standards are maintained. In the context of a news programme aimed at adults, and items which carried relatively high value in terms of public interest and freedom of expression, the Authority was satisfied that the language would be unlikely to cause widespread undue offence among the general audience....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the rescue of an American woman who had been held captive as a sex slave by a serial killer for two months in South Carolina. The item featured newly-released footage of the woman’s rescue, and showed her chained to the wall of a shipping container by her throat. The item also featured footage of the woman’s appearance on the American talk show, Dr Phil, during which she discussed her kidnapping. The item was preceded by the following verbal audience advisory: ‘A warning: some viewers may find our next story disturbing’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this audience advisory was inadequate given the nature of the footage, which was violent, inappropriate for children and further breached the featured woman’s privacy....

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....