Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-111:Stephens and Radio 95bFM - 1993-111 PDF290. 74 KB...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – light-hearted commentary on a TV3 presenter’s telephone call to Wellington High Court about Justice Ron Young who was hearing TV3’s appeal against some decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Holmes presenter (Paul Holmes) said that TV3’s presenter (John Campbell) had been getting it “up the chutney” at the appeal hearing – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldObservation When complaint referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) in which there is doubt whether broadcaster has had the opportunity to investigate the complaint, the Authority will clarify processes with the broadcaster before formal action initiatedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a Swedish historian and author. During the interview, the presenter allegedly quoted former Finance Minister, Sir Roger Douglas. At the end of the item, the presenter also read out negative and critical comments from listeners about the interview. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s statement, allegedly attributed to Sir Roger Douglas, was inaccurate, and that reading out the comments received was offensive. The statement was not a material point of fact in the context of the item and would not have affected listeners’ understanding of the item as a whole, which was focused on the views and work of the interviewee. Further, listeners were unlikely to have understood the statement to be a direct quote from the former Finance Minister, and would not have been misled....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on a police search that ended up with two officers being shot and a police dog being killed – contained interviews with a neighbour living next to the property where the incident occurred and the Commissioner of Police – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview with Police Commissioner was straightforward and respectful – Mr Broad and the police treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s behaviour and comments did not encourage the denigration of members of the New Zealand police force –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast- host read out viewer feedback that contained joke referring to "Jesus Christ" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and children's interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – "Jesus Christ" used to covey exclamation of light-hearted surprise – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration of Christian people – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children's interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast was broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 23 March 2010. During the viewer feedback segment at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Glee promo – male character in a wheelchair said, “I want to be very clear, I still have the use of my penis” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – majority of the content was fun and cheerful – sexual innuendo would have gone over the heads of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Glee, a musical comedy series, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 45am on 13 January 2011, during The Biggest Loser Australia, which was rated G. Most of the promo showed characters singing and dancing. Near the end of the promo, a boy in a wheelchair was shown saying to a girl, “I want to be very clear....

SummaryThe Authority has not upheld a complaint about a promo for Body Fixers, which included a brief shot of a woman exposing her hairy lower stomach area to a team of beauty therapists. The complainant initially complained to the broadcaster that the promo showed a man exposing his pubic hair. The Authority viewed the promo broadcast at the date and time identified by the complainant, and was satisfied that the promo showed a woman lifting her shirt to expose her lower stomach area, rather than a man pulling down his pants to show his pubic hair. The Authority nevertheless went on to consider the promo against the good taste and decency standard, finding that, in the context of a programme about beauty therapy, the fleeting shot of lower stomach body hair was unlikely to cause undue or widespread offence and distress....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment made by Dai Henwood referring to the Mountain City Fiddlers breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The comment, which was made while introducing a country music-themed section in Dancing with the Stars, was found to be within audience expectations for the programme, the presenter, and PGR programmes in general. It was unlikely to cause widespread offence or adversely affect child viewers, and did not reach the threshold requiring regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-011:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-011 PDF516. 75 KB...

SummaryFootage showing a man who had his genitals stapled to a cross – which was then set alight – was included on Havoc 2000 Deluxe broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on 9 November 1999. The programme also included a sequence where one of the presenters asked a woman on the street if she would consider "a blow-job for four [dollars]". The programme broadcast on 16 November included reaction to the incident. Simon Boyce and Carey Clow both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence showing the man nailing his genitals to the cross was indecent and breached broadcasting standards. Mr Boyce also complained about the approach made to the woman on the street, and Mr Clow complained about the programme broadcast the following week which referred to the stapling incident and the reaction to it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interview with former Breakfast presenter Paul Henry – questioned Mr Henry on his controversial remarks about the Chief Minister of Delhi – comments about the Chief Minister were re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on Paul Henry and his perspective on the various controversies in which he was involved – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – Paul Henry’s comments did not extend to a section of the community – interviewer challenged his views – interview did not encourage discrimination or denigration of Indian people – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments about the Chief Minister revisited in current affairs context – interview would not have…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – contained sexual content and innuendo – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content was subtle and inexplicit – nature of sexual innuendo would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldStandard 8 (responsible programming) – the episode was correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An episode of the cartoon comedy Family Guy was broadcast on FOUR at 7. 30pm on Thursday 20 October 2011....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes – however the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – attempt at humour and satire – freedom of expression outweighed potential harm caused – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – guideline 7a provides exemption for humour and satire – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item – visit to Wellington by Prince Charles – two topless women protesters shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item not harmful to children – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 8 March 2005 reported on the visit to Wellington by Prince Charles. The item included a public function which had been disrupted by two women protesters, both of whom were topless. Complaint [2] Alexander Watts complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had not maintained standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency or children’s interests....

ComplaintStrassman – fuck – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – assessment of context required by standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits bordered on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 5 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Grant Nesdale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. He argued that television should "upgrade" values, rather than denigrate them. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It also said that television’s role was to reflect society’s values....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter was discussing American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship. At the end of the segment the presenter remarked, ‘Yeah, they don’t have very good humour the British, do they? They probably didn’t get [Mr Spieth’s] speech. ’ A complaint was made that this comment was ‘racist and untrue’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comment was not malicious and was unlikely to cause widespread offence, therefore any potential harm caused by the broadcast did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy  Introduction[1] During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter discussed American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....