Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed further charges laid against a man accused of a double shooting in South Auckland. During the item, images of the crime scene were shown, including footage of blood on a pavement. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the footage of blood breached the privacy of those involved (ie, the surviving victim and the victims’ relatives or friends), and that the footage would have disturbed young viewers. No individuals were identified during the broadcast, including the surviving victim or either of the victims’ relatives or friends. In addition, the image of blood was brief and was not graphic or explicit, and viewers could reasonably expect that a news broadcast reporting on a double shooting might contain some footage relating to the crime....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-028:McKay and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-028 PDF318. 05 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 116/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 21/95 Dated the 12th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOANNE DACZO of Pirongia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the language used in two episodes of The Hotel Inspector, breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. In this context, the language used would not have caused audiences undue offence or harm and it was not beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. The programme was adequately signposted to enable audiences to protect children. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests...

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....

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....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion about New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup – caller suggested host was overly critical of the team – host’s response – abusive – unfair – sexist FindingsPrinciple 1 – subsumed Principle 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7, Guideline 7a – threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup was discussed on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 15 March 2003 hosted by Doug Golightly. One woman caller suggested to the host that he was overly critical of the team. The host advised the caller to return to domestic duties....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for The Graham Norton Show – promo for Christmas special showed a photograph of a couple dressed as Mary and Joseph holding a dog in swaddling clothes – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour – would not have offended most viewers in context – innocent lampooning of religious figures comes within the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour as opposed to a criticism of Christians – content did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – interviewed Cyclone Yasi survivor – reporter stated “Jesus, what went through your mind? ” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “Jesus” used to convey exclamation of shock – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Friday 4 February 2010, reported on Cyclone Yasi in Queensland. During the item, the reporter interviewed a survivor who explained that she had been sitting on the toilet when a big tree came through the wall, to which the reporter responded, “Jesus, what went through your mind?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-075:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-075 PDF484. 07 KB...

ComplaintSex and the City – fuck – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – context – 9. 30pm – AO Classification – warning verbal and written – well known series – not offensive in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Sex and the City told the story of a man who exclaimed the words "fucking bitch" during sexual intercourse. Sex and the City was broadcast weekly on TV3 at 9. 30pm and the episode complained about was screened on 5 June 2001. Grant Nesdale complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In response, TV3 referred to viewers’ expectations of the well-known series, the rating, the time of broadcast and the warning. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Nesdale referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary An item on Breakfast broadcast on TV One at about 7. 40 am on 9 July 1998 reviewed the contents of leading women’s magazines published during that week. A studio guest referred to Paula Yates, who was featured in a magazine, and commented that Yates was known largely "for shagging the famous". Mr Yoxall complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the remark was vulgar, and an unacceptable breach of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that the context of the remark was that the live studio broadcast was as tabloid as the magazines it reviewed. The comment was the guest’s genuinely-held opinion, and reflected a widely-held view of Yates. It was delivered in a light-hearted, laconic manner and, although unfortunate in view of Yates’ apparent attempted suicide, did not breach the standard, TVNZ wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This Way Up – host interviewed correspondent about an Irish pub which had been burned to the ground twice allegedly by local mafia in Sicily – host laughed occasionally while asking questions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – awkward laughter did not threaten standards of good taste and decency in the context of an entertainment programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Radio New Zealand National’s This Way Up programme on the afternoon of Saturday 3 March 2007 the host, Simon Morton, interviewed a correspondent in Rome. The correspondent told the story of an Irish pub in Sicily – owned by Italian and Irish men – that had refused to pay the local mafia “protection money”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 46/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF AUCKLAND Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

At the beginning of the Weekend Sport programme on Newstalk ZB, host Miles Davis referred to the ‘gridlock’ protest regarding COVID-19 restrictions. Davis said he had a message for the protestors, critiquing their form of protest and expressing what he would do if the protest blocked Davis on the road, including they would gain ‘a tyre iron’ through their windows followed up with some ‘football hooliganism’. The complainant stated this portion of the programme breached the good taste and decency, violence, and law and order standards as it incited violence. The majority of the Authority declined to uphold the complaint, finding the comments, on balance, constituted satire and humour and did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. The minority found the comments were likely to incite violence and breached all standards raised. Not Upheld by Majority: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Violence...