Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coke Countdown – Top 40 music video clips – allegedly sexually explicit and in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – denigration requires a high threshold – no denigration of women – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interest of child viewers – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Coke Countdown was broadcast on TV2 on Sunday 8 May 2005 from 10am to 12 noon. [2] The programme was a Top 40 show, featuring the most popular hit songs of the week. The fourth spot in the line up featured the song “Candy Shop” by hip hop artist 50 Cent, and featured female vocalist Olivia....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Band of Brothers – sex scene broadcast at approximately 8. 40pm – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sex scene constituted strong adult material – shown too soon after the 8. 30pm Adults only watershed – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme’s content appropriate for AO-classified programme broadcast at 8. 30pm – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the mini-series Band of Brothers was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Monday 15 March 2010. The series was based on a best-selling book about a World War II United States Army airborne unit known as Easy Company....

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds promo – featured a woman unbuttoning her shirt to reveal her bra – implied she was a prostitute who had been killing her clients – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, programme classification and children's interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) and Standard 9 (children's interests) – promo contained adult themes – not suitable for child viewers or for broadcast during the news – PGR classification incorrect – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not applicable – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the crime drama Criminal Minds was broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contained segment called “My Kid Could Draw That” – comments made about picture drawn by a child – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unnecessary for child to be identified – linked young girl to ribald adult sexual humour – exploitative – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme broadcast outside of children’s normally accepted viewing times – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme 7 Days was broadcast on TV3 at 10pm on Friday 25 September 2009. The programme involved the host questioning two three-person teams of comedians about various events which had been reported in the media during the week....

ComplaintMarathon Man – film – offensive language – warning ought to have been broadcast – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The movie Marathon Man was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on 22 May 2002. [2] Mrs M Charlton complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the movie contained offensive language, and that viewers ought to have been warned about its use. [3] Prime upheld the complaint and apologised to the complainant. It explained that appropriate staff had been reminded of Prime’s collective responsibility "with emphasis placed on not making assumptions on behalf of viewers and that warnings must be specific in nature". [4] Dissatisfied with the action taken in response to her complaint, Mrs Charlton referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the satirical series Go Ahead Caller, in which host Ken Oath ‘equates our majority government with those in some other countries where socialism failed’, featured a phone call from a fictional caller, who used the word ‘shit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast and the use of this word breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that the use of the word complained about was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, in the context of the broadcast. The Authority also found that, given the satirical nature of the programme and audience expectations, the broadcast did not threaten community norms of good taste and decency, or justify restricting freedom of expression....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks in response to a breach of the fairness standard during a segment of Jay-Jay, Flynny and Jase Driving You Home was insufficient. The segment featured host Flynny telling a story about an ‘embalmer’ who had embalmed their cat after it passed away. The Authority agreed that the complainant was unfairly treated by the broadcaster in breach of the fairness standard. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster, which included a direct apology to the complainant, and counselling of the hosts concerned, was proportionate to the breach. The Authority also found that the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and that the complainant’s privacy was not breached as they were not identifiable in the broadcast. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken), Good Taste and Decency, Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contained racial comments, coarse language and sexual connotations – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content amounted to legitimate humour/satire referencing current affairs issues – consistent with expectations of New Zealand comedy programme broadcast at 9. 30pm – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and screened at 9. 30pm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 7 Days, a comedy programme in which two teams of comedians reviewed the week’s news stories, was broadcast at 9. 30pm on TV3 on Friday 1 April 2011....

ComplaintThe Edge – listeners asked to call station mid afternoon – hot topic – frequency of sex – reference to self pleasure and pain of some sexual experiences – offensive and inappropriate for children – recommended uphold by broadcaster as inappropriate for children – Principle 7 and guideline 7a – announcer spoken toFindingsPrinciple 1 – adult topic during children’s normal viewing times – context and Bill of Rights – no upholdPrinciple 7 guideline 7a – agree with broadcaster’s recommendation – uphold – no orderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The frequency of sex was the "hot topic" for the listener phone-in programme broadcast by The Edge from 4. 05pm on 29 November 2001. One caller asked if the topic included self-pleasure, and another said frequent or long sexual encounters could be painful....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-029:O'Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-029 PDF1. 33 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of talkback programme Canterbury Mornings expressed the view that parking wardens in Christchurch were ‘scum’ for ticketing people in the central city, after everything they had been through with the earthquakes. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments were unacceptable, irresponsible and denigrated parking wardens. The comments related to a legitimate issue and were well within the host’s right to free speech, especially given that talkback radio is recognised as a robust and opinionated environment. A caller also challenged the host, so listeners were given a countering perspective....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – contained a scene in which a character dreamed about a sexual encounter – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was classified PGR – no nudity – broadcaster was mindful of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Shortland Street, broadcast at 7pm on 31 May 2007, a scene showed two of the main characters, Maia and Mark, involved in a sexual encounter. The scene contained head-and-shoulder shots of both characters apparently having sex. The scene ended eight seconds later with the character Maia waking up and realising that the sexual encounter with Mark was just a dream....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-052 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A documentary about the naturist movement in New Zealand, entitled Inside New Zealand: Nude Zealand, was broadcast on TV3 on 16 June 1999, commencing at 8. 30 pm. It contained footage of naked men and women, including breasts and male genitalia. Kristian Harang complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, that the broadcast portrayed nudity as normal, whereas very few people in New Zealand were nudists and many would object to nudity being screened in their homes. The numerous scenes of naked men and women, and male genitals, in family viewing time would have a detrimental effect on children and young people, he wrote. TV3 responded that the documentary was preceded by a written and verbal warning, and screened in AO time. The programme’s depiction of nudity was innocent and non-sexual, it wrote, and portrayed the naturists’ bodies matter-of-factly....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Afternoons with Wendyl Nissen with a journalist, about an article she had written regarding the upcoming perjury trial of the secret witnesses who testified in David Tamihere’s murder trial. During the interview the journalist discussed the discovery of one victim’s body, saying, ‘you think of a body turning up… it’s really… bones. The trampers who found [the] body actually stepped on it before they saw it. ’ Ms Nissen replied: ‘So there was a crunch’, adding, ‘– sorry to be disgusting’. A complaint was made that this comment was ‘disgusting, disrespectful’ and ‘in poor taste’....

The Authority upheld a complaint that a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Dasam Granth Da Sach breached the good taste and decency, violence and law and order standards. During the segment, the host made threatening comments, directed at members of a Sikh sect in response to recent violent incidents in India. The Authority found the comments undermined widely shared community standards, considering their seriousness, specificity and other contextual factors. The Authority also found the comments actively incited violence and promoted disrespect for the law within the specific community of listeners. The Authority recognised the value of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression but found the potential for harm justified a restriction of this right. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order Orders: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the hosts of The Big Show about touching their testicles when they were nervous and a school speech titled ‘The Dilworth Way’ breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority found the comments were within audience expectations for the programme and the radio station, Radio Hauraki. In the context the hosts’ conversation was unlikely to cause widespread offence or adversely affect any children who happened to be listening (although they were not the target audience). Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview on The Weekend, which covered various aspects of racism in Canada, breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority found that the interviewee’s use of ‘goddamn’ as an expletive was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. Further, the interviewee’s reference to the colonial treatment of Canada’s indigenous people did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found that the comments did not apply to a recognised section of the community consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993. The Authority therefore found any restriction on the right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...