Search Rapua

ComplaintLive to Air: an Election Drama – radio play – National Radio – use of words "God" and "Jesus Christ" as expletives – offensive language – blasphemy FindingsPrinciple 1 – context – no uphold Principle 7 and Guidelines 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f – only Guideline 7a relevant – threshold not achieved – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Live to Air: an Election Drama was the title of a fifty minute-long radio play broadcast on National Radio at 4. 05pm on Sunday 28 July 2002. The dialogue on occasions used the words "God" and "Jesus Christ" as expletives. [2] Stella Anne McArthur complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the irreverent use of holy names. She described their use as offensive....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on the Boobs on Bikes parade in Wellington – contained footage of bare-breasted women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of bare breasts was not salacious – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheldStandard 7 (programme classification) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 7 November 2008, reported on the "Boobs on Bikes" parade promoting the Erotica exhibition that took place in Wellington....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on the sentencing of convicted rapist Roger Kahui included a brief re-enactment showing actor forcing entry into victim’s home – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item made it clear to viewers that it was a re-enactment – stylised dramatisation – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item was brief – unlikely to disturb child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not relevant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – footage of teenagers committing animal cruelty offences – images of hedgehogs and ducks subjected to cruelty – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 – good taste and decency – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 – children’s interests – contextual factors, particularly warnings, were sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV3 broadcast an item on 25 July 2005 at 7. 30pm entitled “God’s Creatures”, as part of the 60 Minutes current affairs programme. The item covered the recent arrest of two people in Huntly for animal cruelty. The item also dealt with the suggested link between animal cruelty and subsequent violent offences against people. [2] The item reported that the teenagers had set fire to cages which had trapped two feral cats....

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – question posed by talkback host – "what is wrong with a father having sex with his daughter anyway? " – breach of good taste – upheld by Radio Pacific – verbal warning given to host – action insufficientFindingsInsufficient action – upholdOrder Letter of apology to be sent to complainantThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe host of a Radio Pacific talkback session, broadcast at 3. 00am on 27 December 2000, made the comment on air to a caller, "what is wrong with a father having sex with his daughter anyway? " The topic of incest had arisen in the conversation. Wendy Dickinson complained to the broadcaster, The Radio Works New Zealand Ltd, that the talkback host’s comments were "abhorrent", and should not have been made on radio....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the hosts discussed their conversation with a guest the previous day who was described as a successful voice coach, and who gave tips about putting on a ‘sexy voice’. One of the hosts prank called two phone sex chat lines and spoke to the operators to see whether they used a ‘sexy voice’. One of the operators he spoke with was the complainant, who discussed practical aspects of the service, including how calls were conducted and paid for. A distinctive sound could be heard in the background of the call. The Authority upheld a complaint from the operator that this broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the outbreak of a cattle disease on a farm in South Canterbury. The item featured an interview with a farmer who used the expression ‘for Christ’s sake’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this expression was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times. The Authority found there was public interest and high value in hearing an authentic voice from a New Zealand farmer as part of the news report. The Authority also noted it has consistently found that variations of ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are commonly used as exclamations, and in this case, the interviewed farmer used the phrase to express his frustration and strong support of the affected farm owner....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The first segment of The AM Show’s daily panel, featuring panel guests Dr Don Brash and Newshub reporter Wilhelmina Shrimpton, discussed Dr Brash’s views on the use of te reo Māori in New Zealand, specifically in RNZ broadcasting without translation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this panel discussion lacked balance and was unfair to Dr Brash. The Authority found that, while the panel discussion was robust and Dr Brash’s opinion was tested by the panel, Dr Brash was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his point of view in the time allowed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. On 15 March 2019 a special 1 News broadcast covered the terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. The broadcast featured footage of victims being taken into hospital, many of whom had visibly sustained gunshot injuries and/or were identifiable. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the coverage breached the privacy standard. The Authority found that media coverage of this event had high public interest in light of the unprecedented nature of extreme violence that occurred. The media had an important role to play in informing the public of events as they unfolded, including the nature and scope of injuries suffered and the action of first responders, including medical personnel. The Authority acknowledged that the repeated use of footage of identifiable victims amounted to a breach of privacy but found that the public interest defence applied....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. The Authority upheld a complaint that the use of the word ‘fuck’ in an episode of the programme Eating Fried Chicken in the Shower breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. While the Authority recognised the value and nature of the programme, it was not preceded by any offensive language warning which the Authority considered necessary as the language used was outside audience expectations for the programme, and the programme was aired at 7:30pm, at a time when children may be listening. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests No Order...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Night at the Classic – AO comedy programme broadcast at 10pm and preceded by warning, contained swearing and sexual references – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – swearing and sexual material were permissible in the context of an AO comedy programme screened at 10pm and preceded by a specific warning – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified and screened in an appropriate timeslot – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A Night at the Classic, a late-night comedy series featuring New Zealand comedians, contained swearing and sexual references. The programme was classified Adults Only (AO) and was broadcast at 10pm on 3 January 2013 on TV One....

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....

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – John Banks – critical of Italian team at America’s Cup – greasy Italians – unfair – offensive language – discriminatory – incomplete tape FindingsPrinciple 1 – offensive – uphold Principle 7 – no uphold OrderCosts to the Crown in the sum of $1000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During his talkback programme broadcast between 6. 00–9. 00am on 23 February 2000 on Radio Pacific, host John Banks referred to an incident which had occurred in the America’s Cup race the previous day when the Italian challenger had experienced a number of mishaps and a crew member suffered a head injury. Among other things, he was said to have described the team as "greasy Italians who should be sunk to the bottom of the Waitemata Harbour....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-164:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-164 PDF362. 98 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. 1993-104:Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104 PDF313. 81 KB...