Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Date My Ex – reality series broadcast at 3pm contained footage of people drinking alcohol – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, liquor and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – presence of liquor in the programme was extremely brief and alcohol consumption was not glamorised – content did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly rated PGR – did not contain any material which warranted a higher rating of AO – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme’s content would not have offended the majority of viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintThe Boys Club – film – fuck – offensive FindingsStandard G2 – adult theme – contextual factors – rating – warning – classification – time of screening – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The Canadian film The Boys Club was broadcast on TV3 on 24 June 2001. It told the story of some teenage boys with a secret hideout who hide a dangerous criminal. Their conversation frequently used the word "fuck" and its derivatives. Phillip Smits complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the teenage boys as the main characters used offensive language extensively. People of that age, he wrote, should not be allowed to swear. In response, TV3 pointed to programme’s rating (AO), the time of screening (10. 40pm), and the verbal and written warning which preceded the broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – segment called “Good Sorts” profiled volunteer fireman – interviewee used the phrase “good bastard” twice – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language used in complimentary way – not aggressive or abusive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News was an unclassified news programme targeted at adults – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – One News was an unclassified news programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – no discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of This Town showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this encouraged cruelty to animals and was inappropriately rated G. While some viewers may have found the footage unpleasant, it was not unexpected or gratuitous as the subject matter was well signposted, and it highlighted the reality that we live in a society which eats meat and that animals must be killed and prepared in order for this to occur. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] This Town, a documentary series about people living in small towns in New Zealand, profiled a group of duck hunters and showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-055:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-055 PDF429. 31 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On two occasions, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children could be listening. The comments were consistent with the expectations of Radio Hauraki’s adult target audience, and would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners. Both items were light-hearted and intended to be humorous rather than offensive. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In two separate items, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The first item was broadcast on 5 March 2014 at 7. 34am and the second item was broadcast on 27 March 2014 at 7. 50am....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] At the conclusion of an interview with a scientist on The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry asked her, ‘Did you have sex with Richard Branson? ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the question was inappropriate and discriminated against women. It was a provocative remark that was not unduly surprising given Mr Henry’s well-known style. It was also relevant that the scientist herself was apparently not offended and was aware she might be questioned about Mr Branson. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry interviewed a scientist, Dr Michelle Dickinson, about her research. At the end of the interview he asked about her recent experience staying with Richard Branson, a well-known businessman....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Jono and Ben showed a parody of the Biblical event the Last Supper, in which the 'disciples' complained that 'Jesus' brought bread to dinner when 'Simon' and 'Paul' were 'gluten-free'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the promo was offensive to Christians. Light-hearted satire of religious figures is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression. This particular skit was not malicious and did not threaten norms of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] A promo for Jono and Ben showed a parody of the Biblical event the Last Supper, in which the 'disciples' complained that 'Jesus' brought bread to dinner when 'Simon' and 'Paul' were 'gluten-free'. [2] Lois Durward complained that the promo was offensive to Christians, especially as it was shown during the week before Easter....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referring to phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times as an exclamation when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language breached broadcasting standards. It would not have offended a significant number of viewers or adversely affected any children who might have been watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referencing phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup – for example, ‘by God they are playing well’. [2] Craig Davie complained that Mr Henry used ‘foul language’ and was ‘taking the lord’s name in vain’, which was offensive and unsuitable for children....

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...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-031 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GORDON McKAY of Howick Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary A competition which invited listeners to relate how and at what age they had lost their virginity was broadcast on 91 ZM in Christchurch on 23 June 1999 at about 4. 30pm. Mr Eccleton complained to the station manager that by promoting the competition, the announcer was being irresponsible and cheap. He said he considered it to be "simply tacky" to promote the competition. When he did not have a response from the station within 20 working days, Mr Eccleton referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. At the Authority’s request, the station responded to the complaint. First it advised that it had not received the original letter of complaint, and secondly, that when the second letter was referred to it, it had not treated the matter as a formal complaint....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "The Complainers" – offensive behaviour – nudity; unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard G2 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G12 – AO – warning – 8. 30pm – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Documentary New Zealand programme entitled "The Complainers" was broadcast on TV One on 3 July 2000 at 8. 30pm. Among those featured was a complainant who has complained regularly about broadcasters’ practice of electronically masking the genitals of people appearing naked in programmes. He and a woman were shown naked in a brief sequence, part of which showed his body un-pixellated. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence, which showed the woman’s breasts and the man’s genitals, was offensive when broadcast in family viewing time....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 67/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IAN PRESTON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

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....