Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News– item reported on the Warriors rugby league team’s anti-bullying campaign – included video footage of high school students fighting – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violenceFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – introduction clearly signposted that item contained violent material – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – host interviewed a representative from MetService about weather predictions made by NIWA – host commented “Do those people at NIWA, do they read your forecasts, or have they got their heads so far up their backsides they don’t take any notice of anyone else?” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s comment colloquial – would not have caused offence or distress to listeners – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A talkback programme, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on Friday 24 December 2010 at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved an Alzheimer’s sufferer who enlisted the help of his son to capture, torture and kill young blonde women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – violence was graphic and deeply disturbing – amounted to stronger material which warranted AO 9. 30pm classification – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – programme should have been broadcast later – warning was not adequate – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme material warranted higher classification – warning was inadequate – level of violence and menacing themes were more extreme than in other 8....

ComplaintThe Edge – ring-in competition – how to deal with unwanted singing hamster – some callers’ suggestions violent and cruel – offensive – illegal – inappropriate for childrenFindingsPrinciple 1 – insufficient information about context – decline to determinePrinciple 2 and Principle 7, guideline b – no tape – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Listeners to The Edge were invited to phone in and suggest ways of dealing with an unwanted singing hamster. The suggestions broadcast between 7. 50–8. 10am on 21 December 2001 involved various degrees of violence and cruelty. [2] Mr Butcher complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the methods were offensive, illegal and inappropriate for broadcast during children’s normal listening times. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr Butcher referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Embarrassing Bodies – episode focusing on vaginas broadcast at 8. 30pm – close-up shots of women’s vaginas and surgical operations – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme had educational value – clear pre-broadcast warning for nudity and medical scenes – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and preceded by adequate warning – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSong "You Suck" – Yeastie Girls – offensive language – oral sex described – 8. 30pm – student radio – targeted to gay and lesbian listenersFindings Principle 1 – despite context, content exceeded community expectations of good taste – upholdOrderCosts to Crown in the sum of $250 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During a programme entitled Around the Bend broadcast on 95bFM on 30 April 2000 at about 8. 30pm a song by the Yeastie Girls entitled "You Suck" was played. It concerned oral sex. Barbara Faithfull, on behalf of the Credo Society, complained to 95bFM, the broadcaster, that the song was "nauseatingly indecent, morally repugnant and human degradation personified" and breached broadcasting standards. In its response, 95bFM reported that this was a "joke song" created in response to the "overt sexism" of songs by the Beastie Boys....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now?, broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live – host likened the appearance of a talent show contestant to that of a person suffering from an intellectual disability – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – host’s comments intended to be positive – item lacked necessary invective to amount to encouraging denigration – not upheld Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – host had no intention to insult or offend – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Radio Live on 27 August 2007 discussed a British talent show contestant named Paul Potts and his rapid rise to fame after his singing audition on the programme “Britain’s Got Talent”....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the language used in a post-match interview on 1 News. The Southland Rugby captain used the phrase ‘shove it up their arse’ in response to a question on what he would say to ‘the detractors’. The Authority found this was low-level coarse language, within audience expectations, and recognised the value of allowing interviewees to express themselves in their own words. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News at Midday – item reported comeback of English matador – showed images of bull with banderillas protruding from its back – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item did not contain any objectionable footage – no warning required – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News at Midday, broadcast on TV3 at 12pm on Tuesday 1 September 2009, reported that a 67-year-old English matador was returning to Spain to continue his career in the bull fighting ring following major knee surgery and a quadruple heart bypass. The item included footage of the man getting into costume and in the ring with a bull....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – after an item about duck hunting maimais, the news presenter stated “a man needs his cave” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – complainant mistaken – broadcaster’s response adequate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6. 55pm on Friday 2 May 2008, reported on a group of duck-hunting “Southern men” who held an annual award ceremony for the best maimai (a camouflaged construction that shelters and hides duck hunters). The item looked at two different maimais, one consisting of a raised camouflaged caravan, and the other a small house-like structure that had running water, beer on tap and SKY television....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – comment included a statement that the Green Party was the party of square dancers – complainant objected to square dancers being associated with the Green Party – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated square dancersFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant to complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – square dancers not a “section of the community” to which the guideline applies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 6 June 2006 at approximately 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – comment from late-night talkback host about people from Christchurch “cuddling their sheep” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard as made reference to bestialityFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – Comment clearly intended to be humorous – no offensive language used – no direct reference to bestiality – comment very mild – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Shortly after midnight during the Radio Pacific late-night talkback show on 20 December 2004, the host, Miles Davis, stated that he did not intend to take any more calls from Christchurch residents, and that they should simply go to bed and “cuddle up to their sheep”. Complaint[2] Bruce Newburgh complained to Radio Pacific that the comment was in bad taste, as it implied that people from Christchurch practised bestiality....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-014 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANNE DINGWALL of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary The programme Police, broadcast weekly on TV2, depicts aspects of police work, including the apprehension of criminals. Episodes broadcast on 30 April and 14 May 1998 at 8. 00pm included angry exchanges where the word "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions. Mr Werder complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive and should not have been broadcast at a time when children were watching television. In his view, the warning preceding the programmes was inadequate and did not absolve the broadcaster of its responsibility to be mindful of children. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Police was a documentary about actual police work. It was all too common, it noted, that police encountered abusive people who gave vent to their feelings by using foul language....

Summary The film Primal Fear was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 July 1999. It concerned the trial of a young man accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop. Aaron Authier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film was an attack on Christianity. He said he objected to the blasphemous language used and the manner in which Catholic clergy had been represented in the film. In his view, it should have been preceded with a warning about its content. TVNZ responded by noting that the film was classified as AO and was screened during AO time. Furthermore, it was preceded by a warning which emphasised that it was intended for adult audiences. To the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and misrepresented the clergy, TVNZ responded by reminding the complainant that the film was a work of fiction....