Search Rapua

Complaint60 Minutes – interview with swimmer Trent Bray – allegations of steroid use – unfair to interviewee – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – swimmer given opportunity to tell his side of the story – not treated unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Swimmer Trent Bray, who had tested positive to a performance-enhancing drug, was interviewed on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 26 March 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. In an emotional sequence, he denied the allegation. J B Meiklejohn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inexcusable and unjustifiably insensitive to broadcast footage of the swimmer "incoherent in grief". In its response, TVNZ advised that the swimmer had not been coerced into participating in the interview, and had been aware of the scope of questions to be asked....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tiger’s Tail – movie contained scene which combined sex and violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order and violence FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – guideline 10c – depiction of rape required pre-broadcast warning – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – movie did not glamorise rape, or otherwise promote or condone rape – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Tiger’s Tail was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 31 October 2010....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

ComplaintPromo for Always Greener – bare buttocks masked by a "smiley face" – indecent – harmful to children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – masking device not offensive – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – not harmful to child viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A promo for Always Greener was broadcast on TV One at various times on 2 February 2003. A "smiley face" was used to cover the bare buttocks of a male character. [2] John Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that masking the human form in this manner was offensive and harmful to children. [3] In response, TVNZ said the "smiley face" was attached so that the promo could be shown at any time. It declined to uphold the complaint that the masking breached broadcasting standards....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB: Larry Williams Breakfast Show – host said "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" – offensive FindingsPrinciple 1 – colloquialism – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" was the phrase used by the host of the Larry Williams Breakfast Show when talking to a guest. The comment was made at about 8. 15am on 18 July 2003 on Newstalk ZB. [2] J H Mahoney complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the phrase, especially at that time of the morning, was disgusting. [3] In response, TRN described the phrase as a "widely used colloquialism" which would not have caused major offence to its primary audience aged 35 years and over....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-127 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN THOMAS of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A promo for the Jo Brand programme included a "stand-up" comedy routine in which the comedian related how her mother warned her not to take sweets from old men. In relating the story, she used the expression "getting his knob out". The promo was broadcast on TV4 on 26 January 1999 at 7. 40pm during a PGR-rated programme. Mr Raffray complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used resulted in the broadcast of AO content during a PGR time-slot, without any warning, and during a programme which appealed to younger viewers. TV4 responded that the promo had a "hard PGR" rating which, it wrote, meant that it could not screen in programmes aimed at children. Because of the way the joke was told, the colloquial words were obscure enough not to be understood by younger viewers, it added....

Summary A representative of the Airline Pilots’ Association was interviewed on Holmes, broadcast at 7. 00pm on TV One on 2 September 1999, in connection with a strike by Ansett pilots. Mr Geddes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was biased, unbalanced and actively denigrated pilots involved in the dispute. He said he was appalled at the rudeness of the interviewer and his unprofessional, discourteous behaviour. TVNZ conceded that the interview could be described as "robust" but did not agree that it was rude or biased. The pilots’ representative was given full opportunity to respond on their behalf, it argued. It explained that, as management had declined to appear, balance was achieved by the presenter adopting a "devil’s advocate" position in order to prevent the item from becoming a chronicle of viewpoints from the Pilots’ Association....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – song called “Fuck You” by Lily Allen was broadcast during the afternoon – the “F” in “fuck” was muted – host explained that the word obscured in the song began with “f” and ended in “u, c, k” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “fuck” inadequately censored – use of the expletive during children’s normally accepted listening times unacceptable – host’s spelling out of the word “fuck” irresponsible – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – broadcaster was not sufficiently mindful of the effect the programme content would have on children – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A song titled “Fuck You” by singer Lily Allen was broadcast on The Edge at 3....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Underbelly – programme about mafia-type gangs in Melbourne – included coarse language, nudity, drugs and violence – 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 Underbelly was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Sunday 13 April 2008. The programme was a drama based on the true story of Melbourne’s infamous gangland killings and events which occurred between 1995 and 2004. [2] The programme contained frequent use of coarse language including the words “fuck”, “cocksucker”, “prick”, “arsehole” and “pussy-whipped”. It also included a scene in which a man killed two other men by shooting them with a pistol....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jono’s New Show promo – man said “Fucken oath, look at him, what a fuckwit. Goes for a run and gets shot in the arse” – “fucken” and “fuckwit” were partially bleeped but words could still be distinguished – broadcaster upheld complaint under two standards – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency) and 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster upheld complaint under two standards and changed appraisal process – action taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Jono’s New Show was broadcast at approximately 6. 14pm on Sunday 14 September 2008 on C4. It included a man saying “Fucken oath, look at him, what a fuckwit. Goes for a run and gets shot in the arse”....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that a group of Australian teenage boys had filmed their attack of a teenage girl and were circulating the footage on DVD – showed some images of the boys’ attack – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, unfair, and in breach of children’s interests and the violence standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Standard 10 Standard 2 (Law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to teenage girl or homeless man – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to violent content – broadcaster did not consider the interests of children – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Thing Called Love – promo – AO rated programme – promo screened at 7. 10pm – PGR time band – host programme rated G – allegedly offensive, contrary to children’s interests and incorrectly classifiedFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – PGR-rated promo broadcast during G-rated host programme in breach regardless of time band – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – PGR rating acknowledged children’s interests – minority – promo should have been rated AO – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the AO-classified programme, A Thing Called Love, was screened on Prime Television around 7. 10pm on 19 August 2005, during the PGR time band....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 127/94 Decision No: 128/94 Decision No: 129/94 Decision No: 130/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TREVOR MALLARD MP and VALERIE L J GREHAN of Wainuiomata and WAINUIOMATA COMMUNITY BOARD and DENNIS J KEALL of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

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....