Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that a man had been found guilty of murdering another man then eating parts of the murdered man’s body – provided details of the man's cannibalistic act – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 10 (violence) – item contained graphic and violent details of a murder and cannibalism – required a specific warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of children's interests and violence No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-122 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by G L BROWN of Nelson Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintQueer as Folk – promo – offensive language – shagged FindingsStandard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold Cross ReferencesDecision No: 1999-163, Decision No: 2000-056 and Decision No: 2000-075 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A promo for the programme Queer as Folk was broadcast on TV4 at approximately 10pm on 23 February 2000. During the promo, the word "shag" was used twice. Paul Schwabe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "shag" was "plainly offensive" and "akin to the ‘F’ word". In its response, TV3 said it did not consider that the average viewer would consider the word "shag" to be a swear word or an offensive term. It also noted that the promo was broadcast at 10pm within an AO programme. It declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – offensive language – illegal – callous remark about shooting militia men in East Timor FindingsPrinciple 1 – flippant remark but not so offensive as to breach – no uphold Principle 2 – no uphold Principle 7 – not applicable This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Host Larry Williams, when listing topics for discussion on his programme, mentioned that New Zealanders had shot a militia man in East Timor, adding: "There’s plenty left to go. " This comment was broadcast during his programme on Newstalk ZB at about 4. 12pm on 27 September 2000. Mrs J K Sanders complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the host’s remark was "totally unacceptable and objectionable". In her view, the remark was contrary to the law and to standards of common decency. She requested that the station take "appropriate action" against the host....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 16/94 Dated the 18th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by VOTERS' VOICE BINDING REFERENDUM INC. of Papakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 148/95 Decision No: 149/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TODD ROUGHTON of Wellsford Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about footage on a 1 News item of a person’s negative reaction after receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The Authority acknowledged the high public value and education in news reporting about COVID-19 testing and found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. The law and order, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Hell’s Kitchen: Served Raw – chef Gordon Ramsay said “fucking Jesus Christ” – 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 Hell’s Kitchen: Served Raw was broadcast on TV2 at 12. 30am on 11 December 2007. The programme revolved around several aspiring chefs who competed against one another in a knock-out competition to win a restaurant. It was presented by Gordon Ramsay, a well-known and hot-tempered chef, who judged the competitors’ performances and sent a different person home each week. During the episode, Gordon Ramsay frequently used the word “fuck” to express his annoyance and frustration, and at one point he said “Fuck me, fucking Jesus Christ”....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made statements regarding the death of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Dixon’s family did not take part in the item and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 8. 42am on Thursday 5 February 2009, the programme’s presenters reported that convicted murderer Antonie Dixon had died in jail. The following exchange took place between the presenters: Host 1: Now in news just to hand, we can confirm that Antonie Dixon is the prisoner who has died at Paremoremo Prison....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented on prisoners being handed over to Afghan security forces – "does anyone care if we put drills through the heads of these people" and "we need to get out the Stanley knives" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were provocative and hyperbolic but intended to stimulate discussion – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on Tuesday 17 August 2010, presenter Paul Henry interviewed TVNZ's political editor on recent events in Afghanistan....

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....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – news item about woman swept away in a flood – news reader laughed – offensiveFindingsPrinciple 1 – style of delivery of item offensive – apology inadequate – upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] A news item on Radio Pacific dealt with a woman who was swept away during a flood. The newsreader laughed as he read the item. [2] Glen Lee complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that laughter during an item about a human tragedy was offensive. [3] In response, The RadioWorks acknowledged that the item had been accompanied by laughter. It said that the hilarity followed a joke which had been told off-air during a preceding commercial break. However, it added, immediately after the laughter, an announcer apologised. [4] Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response, Mr Lee referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

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"....

ComplaintMediawatch – National Radio – allegedly offensive languageFindings Principle 1 – language not offensive – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An interview with former broadcaster Ron Sneddon about recent changes in the radio market was broadcast during Mediawatch on National Radio at about 9. 10am on Sunday 28 September 2003. [2] Miss Hadfield complained about “offensive content and swear words” during the interview, in which references were made to: “tits, bums and fart jokes” a radio station called “The Bitch”. [3] In response, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint on the basis that the language was not offensive in the context of the broadcast. [4] Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Miss Hadfield referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority does not uphold the complaint....

ComplaintStrassman – fuck– offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in Standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits – bordering on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 19 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It pointed out that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had declined to uphold an earlier complaint from Mr Schwabe about such language in Strassman....

Summary An exchange on The Rock included a conversation between the announcer and an actor portraying a fictitious Australian character called Darryl Brock, during which Darryl Brock asked the announcer whether a woman announcer had "big tits" and if "she bang[ed] like a shithouse door in the wind". The exchange was broadcast at around 9. 00am on 25 November 1999. K E Broad complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used was offensive and totally unacceptable, and that children could have heard it because of the time of the broadcast. The RadioWorks responded that the reference to the woman having "big tits" was "perhaps a little raunchy", but was a slang expression and did not contravene broadcasting standards. As to the second remark, the RadioWorks said that the word "shithouse" was also slang and that this remark did not contravene broadcasting standards either....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item during a Newstalk ZB news bulletin featured an interview with Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder. The newsreader introduced the item by saying, ‘Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder believes their loss to the Highlanders is the kick up the backside they need. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘kick up the backside’ was rude, alluded to indecent assault and sexual abuse, and offended ‘community standards’. A ‘kick up the backside’ is a common, colloquial expression in New Zealand, meaning an unwelcome event or action that unexpectedly motivates or inspires. The expression would be well-known to listeners, who would not associate it with indecent or sexual assault. Therefore its use in this context did not threaten standards of good taste and decency....