Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion between commentators about New Zealand’s change in government – one commentator recalled overhearing a conversation at Auckland Airport in which a man told some tourists that the former Prime Minister was a lesbian – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were intended to be humorous and ironic – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme not a news, current affairs or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments related to an individual, not to a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host interviewed Professor of Māori history about 21 hui selecting a ‘Māori’ flag to be flown on Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day – both host and interviewee commented that the process was a waste of time and money – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance – One News item the previous evening presented alternative viewpoints which provided balance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments reinforced negative stereotypes but did not reach threshold necessary for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments about Tino Rangatiratanga flag being one of division were clearly the host’s opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness to Māori dealt…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Hon Tariana Turia called a “confused bag of lard” by host – also accused of being a bully and “all mouth” – allegedly offensive, encouraged denigration, unbalanced and partialFindings Principle 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – comments not indecent – questionable taste – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – not applicable to editorial comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – editorial comment not required to be impartial – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments focused on individual, not group – not upheldObservation Broadcast comments raised issue of fairness, and broadcaster acknowledged probable unfairness. However, neither complainant raised the fairness standard either explicitly or implicitly in original complaints. Authority unable to assess a complaint on standard not raised in original complaints....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments that communities in the Far North of New Zealand were an “underclass” whose children would be “feral” and that welfare benefits should be given to stop them having children – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – talkback radio is a robust environment – host’s comments were extreme but encouraged discussion of a legitimate issue – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Māori in the Far North – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments did not stray beyond norms of good taste and decency – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary A repeat broadcast of an ICE TV programme was screened on TV3 on 17 July 1999, commencing at 9. 35am. ICE TV is a programme aimed at teenagers containing some humorous and informative material. O Blackburn complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, that the programme contained language and nudity that was "unsuitable". TV3 responded that the programme was screened in PGR time and the nudity and language used were appropriate in that context. It contended that the nudity in the programme was not offensive. It said that the shots where the male presenters’ buttocks were visible were part of a comedic routine. It added that no genitalia or breasts were shown. As for the language, it stated it had "beeped" or removed words it considered offensive. TV3 declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Game of Two Halves – hosts said “Christ Almighty” and “Jesus” – allegedly blasphemous and in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alternative definition to words to that alleged by complainant – use of words in such manner not offensive generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A Game of Two Halves screened on TV One at 9. 30 pm on 28 March 2005. The programme is a weekly sports quiz show featuring two teams of various sporting personalities. The teams are headed by well known sporting personalities Marc Ellis and Matthew Ridge. During the programme, the contestants used the words “Christ Almighty” and “Jesus”. Complaint [2] Frank McGuckian complained that the words “Christ Almighty” and “Jesus” were used as “intended expletives”....

During Breakfast, a news presenter laughed before introducing a report regarding Remembrance Sunday. The Authority found this did not breach the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the laughter was clearly directed at another presenter sneezing on-air, not at the story, and would not have caused audiences undue offence or distress, or undermined widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 92/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster PRIMEDIA (Radio Hauraki) of Auckland I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 5/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by Dr GRAEME BISHOP of Picton 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: 75/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GUY HEPWORTH of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-066 Decision No: 1997-067 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MAURICE HOY of Auckland and K J WERDER of Waitoa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-058 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR GLYN THOMAS of Palmerston North TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryIn a prank telephone call broadcast on Solid Gold FM on 12 June 1998 at about 8. 25am, a woman was called by a man claiming to be her fiance’s boss and was told that he was going to be fired because he was sleeping with the boss’s secretary. The woman reacted with tearful remonstrations, but then admitted that she was having an affair with her fiance’s brother. Anrik Drenth of Wellington complained to the station that the call was distressing and offensive because it was malicious, and listeners were not informed at the conclusion that it was a prank. He noted that the woman had been clearly distressed by the news. In a brief response, the station advised that the call was a hoax and had been set up. It apologised if it caused offence....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989True Stories Uncut: Tantastic – contained shots of naked man – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was not titillating or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary titled True Stories Uncut: Tantastic was broadcast on Prime Television at 9. 35pm on Friday 30 January 2009. The programme spoke to a number of people, described as “tanorexics”, who were obsessed with tanning, either naturally or through the use of sun beds or spray tans in salons. [2] At approximately 9. 55pm, the programme featured a middle-aged man who liked to sunbathe naked. He was shown undressing then lying naked in his backyard, mowing the lawns naked, and then walking down a beach naked....

ComplaintCOW AM – offensive behaviour – offensive language – questions about sex life FindingsStandard G2 – AO – 10. 00pm – explicit questions – context – uphold Cross-referenceDecision Nos: 2000-100–101 Order$250 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of COW AM was broadcast on Channel 9 Dunedin on 29 May 2000. The programme included a sequence during which two young women and a man were questioned by the programme’s presenter about their recent sexual exploits. The programme was broadcast at around 10. 00pm. Mr J G Donaldson complained to Channel 9 Dunedin, the broadcaster, that he was "appalled" by the broadcast of what he called the "indecent interviews"....

ComplaintSouth Park – necrophilia – offensive theme FindingsStandard G2 – offensive material notwithstanding context – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of South Park was broadcast on TV4 at 9. 00pm on 13 September 2001. South Park is a cartoon comedy series. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the "entire episode was based on the theme of necrophilia" (sex with a dead person), which he considered to be outside the accepted norms of taste and decency in the context of a comedy. [3] TV4 declined to uphold the complaint. It did not consider that the programme breached standards relating to good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TV4’s decision, Mr Hooker referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on duck hunting – hunter pointed a rifle at the camera – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – hunter’s action was intended to be humorous and light-hearted – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6....

A segment on The Project reported on the discovery of the Smeagol slug in South Westland. The hosts took the opportunity to tease their co-host, Kanoa Lloyd, during the segment as they knew she had a phobia of slugs. The complainant stated the segment breached the good taste and decency standard as it normalised bullying behaviour and harassing someone due to their phobias. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the segment amounted to friendly banter without any offensive intent. Accordingly, it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a news report covering the US Democratic Convention breached standards by referring to then US President Donald Trump as ‘Trump’ or ‘Donald Trump’ rather than with the title ‘President’. The broadcast was fair to Mr Trump, considering his position and profile as a politician and public figure. It was not misleading to refer to Mr Trump as ‘Donald Trump’ and the report was unlikely to cause widespread offence. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to Mr Trump as an individual. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...