Search Rapua

ComplaintNew Zealand Festival: Virginity – language – "did you fuck him? " – offensive FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – not gratuitous – acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme New Zealand Festival: Virginity was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 19 February 2001. One of the seven women who spoke of their first sexual experiences reported that she was later asked by an acquaintance, "did you fuck him? " Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "fuck" was grossly offensive. He argued that the classification of a programme as AO and the inclusion of a warning did not excuse the broadcaster from the requirement to maintain standards of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented with reference to ACT MP David Garrett, “He is a complete waster....

ComplaintTV2 Big Comedy Gala – offensive language – "fuck, shit, motherfucker" – religious skit – denigrated Christians FindingsStandard G2 – stand-up comedy – AO time – preceded by a warning – offensive language used infrequently – not inappropriate in context – no uphold Standard G13 – did not amount to denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme TV2 Big Comedy Gala, featuring stand-up comedians in a night club setting, was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 05pm on 19 May 2001. A M Langford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that some of the language was very offensive, and one skit ridiculed the Christian faith. In reply, TVNZ acknowledged that the broadcast might not have been to everyone’s taste....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During 3 News: Firstline, TV3’s political correspondent commented that Colin Craig was the ‘toilet paper’ of conservative politics and ‘he’s got the Christians [voting for him]’. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that these comments were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. The segment clearly comprised the correspondent’s own analysis and commentary rather than statements of fact, so viewers would not have been misled and the broadcaster was not required to present other views. As the leader of a political party, Mr Craig should expect criticism and scrutiny, so the comments were not unfair. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During 3 News: Firstline, TV3’s political correspondent commented that Colin Craig was the ‘toilet paper’ of conservative politics, and that ‘he’s got the Christians [voting for him]’....

An item on Breakfast discussed Novak Djokovic, his recovery from COVID-19, his comments regarding efforts to contain the virus, and the others infected at a tennis tournament he organised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the presenter’s description of Mr Djokovic as ‘a dick’ breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found the use of the word would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community values. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-027:Noble and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-027 PDF163. 37 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-100:Minister of Women's Affairs (Hon Jenny Shipley) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-100 PDF635. 3 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-036:Wortelboer and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-036 PDF281. 68 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-023 Decision No: 1998-024 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by J of Palmerston North Broadcaster 92. 2XS (Palmerston North) S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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....

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....

ComplaintHot Property – amateur male strip to raise money for club house – 5. 30pm – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9 – not likely to upset or disturb children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Hot Property is an Australian series about real estate sales. A sequence in which members of a men’s soccer club performed an amateur striptease to raise money for a clubhouse was included in the episode broadcast on TV One at about 5. 30pm on 31 December 2002. [2] Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was offensive to screen a male strip sequence at 5. 50pm, in which naked backsides were shown clearly, without a warning....

ComplaintCockstars – documentary about Puppetry of the Penis – male nudity – "pelvic gyrations" – breach of good taste and decency – failed to consider children’s viewing interest FindingsStandards 1 – context – no uphold Standard 9 – outside children’s normally accepted viewing times – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Cockstars was a documentary about seeking performers for the stage show "Puppetry of the Penis". The programme was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on 5 June 2003. It featured nude males manipulating their genitalia. [2] Fay Woodham complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was offensive because "full frontal nudity" was unacceptable and breached standards relating to children’s viewing interests. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TV3 said in context the broadcast did not breach current norms of good taste and decency....

Complaint Moving On – offensive language – "pissing out" – incorrect classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – context – no uphold Standard 7 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Moving On was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 25 April 2002. The programme followed the fortunes of people moving house. [2] Gordon Hayes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a sequence during which a man featured on the programme used the phrase "pissing out" to describe steam coming from his car’s engine. Mr Hayes said that the phrase was "crude language which should not be allowed in a G programme". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Summary An excerpt from the performance of the Paul Taylor Dance Company was shown at the conclusion of One Network News broadcast on TV One on 25 November between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item, which he said showed naked men, breached acceptable standards of decency and also was offensive to children who might have been watching. TVNZ responded that all of the dancers, both men and women, were wearing patterned tights. It noted that ballet tights were part of the normal attire for both classical and modern dance performances. In the circumstances, it concluded that no standards were relevant. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Harang referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Politically Incorrect Guide to Teenagers – host commented that teenagers were “mental”, “mad”, “not right in the head” – showed sketch of “Mad Uncle Jack” who had been released from psychiatric facility – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content subject to complaint intended to be humorous and educational rather than offensive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments were host’s personal opinion with regard to teenage behaviour – he was not making a comment on people with mental illness as a section of the community – comments did not contain invective necessary to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....