Search Rapua

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Believe Nothing – comedy – reference to cannibalism and consuming body and blood of Jesus Christ – allegedly offensive – allegedly discriminated against CatholicismFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – standard not threatened – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6g (discrimination) – context and satirical series – no discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Believe Nothing is a satirical series lampooning aspects of British and Western culture, constructed around the character of Adonis Cnut played by comedian Rick Mayall. The episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 40pm on 11 January 2004 used Hannibal Lechter imagery and involved references to cannibalism and church practices. Complaint [2] Bert Klaassen complained formally to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about aspects of the programme....

Complaint3 News – item on initiation ceremony at girl’s school – violence – offensive – not in public interest – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 2 and Guideline 2d – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – interests of children considered – no uphold Standard 10 and Guideline10a – violence justified in context of item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on 3 News broadcast by TV3 between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 8 May 2003, depicted a violent initiation ceremony, referred to as "hazing", at a girls’ school in the United States....

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....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – news item about woman swept away in a flood – news reader laughed – offensiveFindingsPrinciple 1 – style of delivery of item offensive – apology inadequate – upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] A news item on Radio Pacific dealt with a woman who was swept away during a flood. The newsreader laughed as he read the item. [2] Glen Lee complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that laughter during an item about a human tragedy was offensive. [3] In response, The RadioWorks acknowledged that the item had been accompanied by laughter. It said that the hilarity followed a joke which had been told off-air during a preceding commercial break. However, it added, immediately after the laughter, an announcer apologised. [4] Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response, Mr Lee referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintThe Panel – promo – panellist mocked Princess Margaret – breach of good taste FindingsStandard G2 – not a breach of good taste – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A promo for the programme The Panel, broadcast on TV3 on 31 May 2001, included a segment where panellist Pam Corkery pointed to a photograph of Princess Margaret from The New Zealand Herald and said, "Princess Margaret wore dark glasses and appeared to be able to see", before bursting into laughter. Mrs Sonia Reardon complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was a breach of good taste and decency for the panellist to make a mockery of Princess Margaret....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – 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 – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback – caller referred to Prime Minister Helen Clark as "a barren bitch and a sleeping homosexual" – failure to cut off caller – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster failed to respond to complaint within statutory 20 working days – later advised the broadcast of derogatory comments against policy – host apologised and gave assurance that it would not occur again FindingsPrinciple 1 – personal abuse – unacceptable – uphold Principle 8 – no tape – no excuse – uphold OrderPrinciple 1 – broadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 20 September 2001 between 9. 00pm and 10. 00pm, a listener heard a caller to the station describe Prime Minister Helen Clark as "a barren bitch and a sleeping homosexual"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item about strip club contained brief footage of woman wearing a G-string dancing erotically on a pole – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was very brief and had some relevance to the subject matter – programme was broadcast more than two hours after the Adults Only watershed – majority of viewers would not have been offended in this context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Nightline followed up an earlier report on a “strip club turf war” in Wellington involving opposition from strip club operators and the police to a new entrant to the city’s entertainment area....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – during interview with Kiwi actor, presenter commented “I was about as popular as a wet fart in a wedding dress” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was a brief, throwaway remark used to convey the meaning the presenter was unpopular – upholding complaint would be unreasonable limit on right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, the presenters interviewed a Kiwi actor. One of the presenters stated: I’ve actually got to make a confession right here and right now [laughter from actor]… what a bang-up geezer [name] is, because I did an interview with [name] about two weeks ago....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a promo for Taranaki Hard. The Authority found the item was within audience expectations for a promo shown during an unclassified news programme. It did not actively promote or glamorise illegal behaviour nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence or cause harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority declined to determine two complaints as they did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that warrant a determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under several standards in relation to a segment on The Project. In the broadcast, comedian Justine Smith joked about throwing a half-eaten apple at anti-abortion protesters. The complainants alleged the segment was offensive, promoted violence and criminal activity, and discriminated against anti-abortion protesters. The Authority found that while the statements may have been offensive to some – in the context of the broadcast as a whole, taking into account audience expectations of the show, and the lack of any specific call to act – the alleged harm caused by the broadcast did not reach the thresholds required to restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression under any of the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, and Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the shooting of two Israeli police officers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem. The segment featured footage of officers being chased and shot at, followed by footage of a man being surrounded and shot at, a blurred shot of a dead body on the ground and a body bag on a stretcher. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority recognised the public interest in the item and that it reported on important and newsworthy events. However, the Authority considered the item should have been preceded by a warning for the potentially disturbing violent content, to enable viewers to make an informed viewing decision, and allow an opportunity to exercise discretion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Bad Santa – promo screened during family Christmas movie The Santa Clause 2 – contained brief shots of “Bad Santa” smoking and throwing a rock at a car windshield – “Bad Santa” told child sitting on his knee that he “loved a woman who wasn’t clean” and when asked if that was Mrs Santa he replied “No, it was her sister” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual references were implied and would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – promo was correctly rated PGR and did not contain any material which warranted a higher classification of AO – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – most viewers would not have been offended by the promo when broadcast in this…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview by Kim Hill with former nun and lesbian activist Monica Hingston breached broadcasting standards by including the suggestion that the Catholic Church, and by connection, all Catholics are corrupt. The Authority found that the interview did not contain a high level of condemnation, nor would it undermine community standards of good taste and decency, as it was a nuanced, considered conversation that was narrowly focused on Ms Hingston’s personal views and experiences with the Catholic Church. Taking into account public interest in the interview and the fact that the interview was clearly signalled as being from Ms Hingston’s perspective, the Authority also determined that it did not result in any unfairness to the Catholic Church. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the word ‘fuck’ in an episode of My Life is Murder, broadcast after 8. 35pm without an ‘L’ advisory for offensive language, breached the good taste and decency standard. In the context, including the programme’s nature, classification and intended audience, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News discussed former MP Steven Joyce’s valedictory speech in Parliament. The item focused on Mr Joyce recounting in his speech an incident where he had a sex toy thrown at him at Waitangi several years earlier. Footage was shown of Mr Joyce recounting this story during his speech, and of the incident at Waitangi. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this broadcast and in particular showing the footage of the sex toy breached the good taste and decency standard. Given the incident was newsworthy and attracted widespread coverage at the time, as well as the light-hearted nature of Mr Joyce’s speech, and the broadcast’s target audience, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensiveSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an interview on Breakfast about a proposed cull of Himalayan tahr, the Minister of Conservation, Hon Eugenie Sage, appeared to use the word ‘cunters’ when referring to the educational effort undertaken by tahr hunters. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the Minister’s use of this word during this interview breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The use of the word was an accidental slip of the tongue and it was clear that the Minister intended to refer to ‘hunters’ during this section of the interview. The use of the word was not deliberate nor was it used with any malice or invective....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a news report covering the US Democratic Convention breached standards by referring to then US President Donald Trump as ‘Trump’ or ‘Donald Trump’ rather than with the title ‘President’. The broadcast was fair to Mr Trump, considering his position and profile as a politician and public figure. It was not misleading to refer to Mr Trump as ‘Donald Trump’ and the report was unlikely to cause widespread offence. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to Mr Trump as an individual. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...