Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Blender – music video included segments of a toddler being frightened by people dressed up as monsters – child shown crying and distressed – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – video unrealistic – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – music video broadcast at 11. 33pm – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – video did not contain any scenes of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of the music video programme Blender, broadcast on C4 at 11. 30pm on 8 June 2009, a video for a song called “Kids” by the band MGMT was played....

Summary The film Heat was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 3 January 1999. Mr Nicholls complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, about the standard of language used in the film. He objected to the excessive use of "fuck", "fucking", and associated words, he wrote, because it led to their normalisation. He argued that the offending words could have been beeped out. The film was shown in holiday time, he said, and swear words should not be accepted on prime family time television. TVNZ responded that the film started at 8. 30pm which was adult programming time, it was clearly rated AO, indicating that it was unsuitable for children, and it was preceded by a specific warning about its violence and language. It said the warning was delivered visually and verbally....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – two items broadcast one after the other – first item reported on the re-opening of the euthanasia debate in the United Kingdom following the screening of a television documentary which showed a terminally ill man taking a lethal dose of drugs in Switzerland – second item reported on a voluntary euthanasia campaigner who had the words "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" tattooed on her chest – both items allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and children’s interests standards FindingsItem on assisted suicide Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – report was tasteful – did not endorse either position – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item preceded by warning –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

ComplaintFight For Life – charity entertainment including boxing and singing for The Yellow Ribbon Trust – one boxer asked if he had a “big knob” – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – contextual matters – majority – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Australian Mark Geyer was one of the boxers who participated in Fight For Life, a charity entertainment programme involving boxing, comedy, and singing for The Yellow Ribbon Trust, broadcast on TV3 between 7. 30–11. 00pm on 14 August 2003. Before his fight, Mr Geyer was asked whether he had a “big knob”. [2] Jean Lattin and Eardley Dijkstra each complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the question was offensive and improper. [3] In response, TV3 explained that the question was part of a live broadcast and unscripted and, given the time of the broadcast (10....

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....

ComplaintSpace – images of man exposing buttocks – "mooning" – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Space was broadcast on TV2 at 11. 25pm on 8 March 2002. At the end of the episode, images of a man’s buttocks, and of a second man holding the cheeks of the man’s buttocks apart, were broadcast in a montage of out-takes over which the closing credits were run. The incident apparently occurred during a stag party. [2] Laurie Collier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence was "one of the most indecent incidents I’ve witnessed on television". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. It did not consider that in the overall context of Space the scene was in breach of broadcasting standards....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP90-SW02 PDF980. 81 KBComplaintScream – movie – breach of good taste – glamorised criminal activity – inappropriately classified AO – broadcaster not mindful of effect on child viewers – broadcaster did not exercise care and discretion regarding violenceFindings(1) Standard 9, Guideline 9b – gruesome and horrific violence – scene at 8. 45pm – uphold Standard 9, Guidelines 9a, 9c, 9e and 9f – subsumed(2) Standard 1 – no uphold(3) Standard 2 – no uphold(4) Standard 7, Guideline 7a – no uphold(5) Standard 10, Guidelines 10a, 10b and 10f – horror film – included elements of parody – violence highly unrealistic – no upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Scream is a teen horror movie which parodies the horror movie genre. The movie was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 18 January 2002....

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....

SummaryAccording to the complainant, a Radio Pacific talkback host referred to a caller as a "stupid old cow" at around 10. 35pm on 26 September 1999. The complainant reported that, later the same evening at around 11. 45pm, the same host talked about a Coronation Street episode and said a male character was "knocking off" two female characters. The complainant also reported that the host frequently used the expression "My God". Lillian Cannell complained to Radio Pacific, now managed by The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used by the host was offensive, and that his use of "blasphemy" was also quite unacceptable. The broadcaster responded that the language used by the host was strong in nature, but was in "the slang category" and did not contravene broadcasting standards....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a remark about suicide made by Mr Burns at the end of The Simpsons Movie was in breach of the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority acknowledged that the remark pushed the boundaries of the G (General) classification and recognised the need for broadcasters to take particular care when addressing subjects such as suicide. However, noting the nature of, and audience expectations for, The Simpsons as well as the nature and position (within the credits) of the remark, the Authority concluded that the programme was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or to be unduly harmful or disturbing to children. The Authority also noted that there were no scenes of violence depicted. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests and Violence...

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 Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, the host Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller, the complainant, who went by the name of ‘Alex’. He said ‘back in 17-something… I’d meet him on the beach as the sun came up and I’d potentially kill him or let him kill me in a duel’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host had made a ‘veiled death threat’ against the complainant. It was clear the host was not making a serious death threat, but was using provocative, metaphorical language to express his strong views about the complainant. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller who went by the name of ‘Alex’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-011:Town and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-011 PDF499. 97 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show made comments that Chihuahuas look like ‘ball bags’ and ‘a scrotum with four legs’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments breached standards of good taste and decency. They were clearly intended to be humorous, and while children could have been listening at 3. 25pm, they would not have offended most listeners taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the station’s target audience and the expectations of regular listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction[1] During the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show, the hosts commented on a listener’s text message about their pet Chihuahua, saying, ‘[Chihuahuas] are like a little skin ball bag thing, aren’t they…? ’, and, ‘They are a scrotum with four legs, those dogs’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a news item about sex workers and escorts opening up about their work on social media breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and programme information standards. The Authority noted the public interest in the broadcast and considered the content was within audience expectations for the news. In this context, the Authority found the item was unlikely to cause widespread offence or undermine community standards. The Authority also found the introduction to the item was sufficient to inform viewers of the nature of the coverage, enabling them to adequately protect themselves and their children from the content by choosing not to watch. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Programme Information...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Newshub Nation, featuring electrical engineer and Pike River Mine researcher, Richard Healey. Mr Healey commented on his claims of ‘new crucial evidence’ the miners could have survived the explosions and of the existence of a pipeline which could be used to recover more evidence. The complaint alleged Mr Healey’s claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence, were not challenged by the host and caused emotional harm to the victims’ families. The Authority acknowledged the sensitivity of the matters discussed, which also carried a high degree of public interest. It found the broadcast clearly presented Mr Healey’s claims as one theory and from a particular perspective. The wide range of information and coverage available over a long period of time since the original events reduced any risk of viewers being misled or significantly misinformed....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Hunter Adventures featuring two groups of duck shooters in New Zealand. The episode included footage of people, including young people, using firearms, shooting ducks, celebrating successful shots, holding and plucking dead ducks, and showcasing hunting gear and equipment. Taking into account the relevant contextual factors including the programme’s classification, target audience and audience expectations, the broadcast did not breach the good taste and decency, children’s interests or violence standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...