Search Rapua

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Talkback radio host Sean Plunket reacted to author Eleanor Catton's comments at a literary festival in India, which were negative about the New Zealand government. He was highly critical of Ms Catton, saying that she was a 'traitor' and an 'ungrateful hua' among other things. The Authority did not uphold complaints that Mr Plunket's comments breached broadcasting standards. The nature of Ms Catton's remarks was such that it was reasonable for them to attract some strong views in response. The host's comments were within the bounds of audience expectations of talkback radio and within the right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about the joking and flirtatious interactions between two males on a Breakfast programme segment. The Authority considered the complaint related to matters of personal preference and was not an appropriate use of its time and resources. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on The AM Show, in which a booth designed to enable doctors to perform discrete testicle examinations was likened to a ‘confession booth’, breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority found that, in the context of the segment, the comparison was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. It also did not reach the level of malice or nastiness necessary to denigrate a section of the community. The public health message in the broadcast was an important one and overall the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported highlights of the ‘2013 MTV Video Music Awards’ and included footage of a female artist, Miley Cyrus, performing a provocative dance called ‘twerking’ while wearing a nude-coloured PVC bikini. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the footage was inappropriate for broadcast during the news. The footage, while not to everyone’s taste, was relatively brief in the context of the item, which featured a number of highlights, and gave a flavour of what had occurred without being gratuitous. The inclusion of the footage was relevant in illustrating why the performance had generated worldwide media attention. Overall, the item was acceptable in the context of an unclassified news programme targeted at adults....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 46/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF AUCKLAND Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 72/94 Dated the 1st day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SPORTING SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INC. Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 115/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 16/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HOPE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 26/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ADOLF SOETEMAN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Aquarius, shown during Seven Sharp, included a brief shot of a partially clothed injured male character surrounded by female characters tending his wounds. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the ‘sexualised’ promo was inappropriate for a time when children could be watching television. The promo did not depict any sexual activity or full nudity, and the shot complained about was fleeting and indistinct. The content was consistent with expectations of a PGR classification and the host news and current affairs programme, and any child viewers would have likely been supervised by adults. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Aquarius, shown during Seven Sharp, included a brief two-second shot of a partially clothed injured male character surrounded by female characters tending his wounds....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Dom, Meg and Randell breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that, while comments made on the show may have been distasteful to some, the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression includes the right to broadcast such material provided this does not cause undue harm. The Authority found that, given the well-established nature of the programme, the station and their target audience, listeners and particularly those with children in their care had sufficient information to make an informed decision about what they listened to. The Authority noted that the standards do not prohibit inexplicit sexual references or sexual innuendo during children’s normally accepted listening times, and it was likely that many of the references during this segment would have gone over the heads of child listeners....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards about an item on 1 News reporting live from Wellington amid protests against increasing rates of sexual violence, which showed a protest sign in the background reading ‘Don’t fuckin’ touch me’. Although some viewers may have been surprised by this, the Authority found overall the potential harm did not outweigh freedom of expression. The Authority took into account: the high public interest in the item; the sign was partially obscured for half of the item; the word complained about was not spoken; and the broadcaster had limited editorial control over the public’s actions during a live cross to the reporter. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-020:Malone and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-020 PDF (315. 48 KB)...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 80/94 Dated the 19th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D. LOW of Kaeo Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-107 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN MALCOLM of Pukerau Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-167 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS SORRELL of Darfield Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary A documentary about the naturist movement in New Zealand, entitled Inside New Zealand: Nude Zealand, was broadcast on TV3 on 16 June 1999, commencing at 8. 30 pm. It contained footage of naked men and women, including breasts and male genitalia. Kristian Harang complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, that the broadcast portrayed nudity as normal, whereas very few people in New Zealand were nudists and many would object to nudity being screened in their homes. The numerous scenes of naked men and women, and male genitals, in family viewing time would have a detrimental effect on children and young people, he wrote. TV3 responded that the documentary was preceded by a written and verbal warning, and screened in AO time. The programme’s depiction of nudity was innocent and non-sexual, it wrote, and portrayed the naturists’ bodies matter-of-factly....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....