Search Rapua

An Explanatory Note on these decisions can be found after the Appendices. ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women, children, homosexuals, elderly – discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, elderly – broadcaster not mindful of effects of broadcasts on children in the listening audience Findings(1) 17 October broadcast – decline to determine (2) 18 October broadcast – no uphold (3) 19 October broadcast – poem about necrophilia – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 – unsuitable for children – uphold (4) 14 November broadcast - 6. 28am – no uphold (5) 14 November broadcast – 7. 10am – decline to determine (6) 14 November broadcast – 7. 29am – no uphold (7) 14 November broadcast – 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – promo broadcast during 3 News- showed one character asking another to "unbutton your shirt and your pants" – overweight male character shown standing naked in a fountain with his stomach covering his genitals – character shown in another scene bending over and having his bottom pinched by his female boss who said, "Yeah, this is going to work out just fine", after which a fart sound was heard and the woman said "excuse me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo was good natured, did not contain adult themes, and was correctly classified – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interview with former Breakfast presenter Paul Henry – questioned Mr Henry on his controversial remarks about the Chief Minister of Delhi – comments about the Chief Minister were re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on Paul Henry and his perspective on the various controversies in which he was involved – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – Paul Henry’s comments did not extend to a section of the community – interviewer challenged his views – interview did not encourage discrimination or denigration of Indian people – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments about the Chief Minister revisited in current affairs context – interview would not have…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made remarks about his dislike for campervans and the people who use them – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host's comments were personal opinion not points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the programme – campervan owners not a section of the community to which guideline 6g applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

SummaryA film called The Cowboy Way, broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd, on 23 September at 8. 30pm, featured actors Woody Harrelson and Kiefer Sutherland as two cowboys who travelled to New York to find the killer of their friend. Mr Standen complained to TV3 that a scene in the film depicted a calf being prepared by the cowboys to suckle on a man’s penis as a form of torture. He claimed the scene was depraved and pornographic, and should not have been broadcast. In describing the film, TV3 stated that the two central characters, while trying to find their friend’s killer, used methods they had learned as cowboys to survive in the city and elicit information about the killing. It maintained that the "suckling calf torture" scene was intended to be humorous and was not pornographic....

ComplaintCourage Under Fire – film – blasphemy – offensive language – "Jesus fucking Christ"FindingsStandard G2 – context – AO classification and time of broadcast – warning – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The film Courage Under Fire was broadcast on TV3 on 21 May 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm. During a combat scene in the film, one of the characters was heard to say "Jesus fucking Christ". Brian Burlace complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used was blasphemous and offensive. TV3 explained that the programme was rated AO and had been preceded by a warning about its language. It also observed that the film had been edited to remove much of its coarse language....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that two sex scenes in Nip/Tuck were too explicit for free-to-air television and breached standards of good taste and decency. One of the scenes included a threesome involving one of the lead characters. The viewer also complained about the use of offensive language during another scene in which a "phone sex artist" discussed throat surgery with her doctor. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ argued that the scenes were acceptable in the context of an AO-rated programme screening at 9. 30pm with a warning for adult sexual material. The broadcaster said the sex scenes were important to the development of the storyline, did not contain any explicit nudity, and were not pornographic. The Authority’s DecisionAs well as the contextual factors noted above (the programme's AO classification, the warning about sexual content, the 9....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item – visit to Wellington by Prince Charles – two topless women protesters shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item not harmful to children – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 8 March 2005 reported on the visit to Wellington by Prince Charles. The item included a public function which had been disrupted by two women protesters, both of whom were topless. Complaint [2] Alexander Watts complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had not maintained standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency or children’s interests....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – light-hearted commentary on a TV3 presenter’s telephone call to Wellington High Court about Justice Ron Young who was hearing TV3’s appeal against some decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Holmes presenter (Paul Holmes) said that TV3’s presenter (John Campbell) had been getting it “up the chutney” at the appeal hearing – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldObservation When complaint referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) in which there is doubt whether broadcaster has had the opportunity to investigate the complaint, the Authority will clarify processes with the broadcaster before formal action initiatedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-148 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W and P JONES of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Yo-Kai Watch was in breach of the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. It found that, while the episode contained negative stereotypes that may not be appropriate for children, and which some parents or caregivers may not approve of, the adult themes and sexual innuendos within the episode were not likely to be understood by child viewers, and the potential harm did not reach the level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host engaged in a heated argument with a caller, calling him a ‘dog’ and saying ‘someone should beat you with a shoe. ’ The Authority acknowledged that the comments were in poor taste, but found they were unlikely to undermine widely shared community standards because, amongst other reasons, talkback is a robust environment and the host’s comments were not explicit or graphic. For the same reasons, the Authority also found the comments did not amount to unduly disturbing violent content and that they were unlikely to incite or encourage violence. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence   ...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the show’s hosts asked callers to submit a ‘corny joke’. A caller submitted the following joke: ‘What’s the hardest part about cooking a vegetable? Trying to fit the wheelchair in the pot. ’ Before the caller delivered the punchline, one of the hosts (who believed he knew the joke), asked his co-hosts to switch off their microphones so they could discuss it. The hosts also spoke to their producer, asking whether it was appropriate to air the punchline to the joke. After some deliberation, they decided to allow the joke to be broadcast. The hosts reacted to the punchline by saying, ‘No! No! That’s a terrible joke! ’ and ‘That’s not a joke! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment was in poor taste and discriminatory....

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....

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-111:Stephens and Radio 95bFM - 1993-111 PDF290. 74 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-019 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAY MAINWARING of Rangiora Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-078 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by T A JOHNSON of Ravensbourne Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Pacific Coast FM – interview with Coromandel resident Bill Muir discussing local politics in Whitianga – during the item Mr Muir made a number of critical statements alleging serious misconduct by members of the local district council and community board – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 5 (fairness) – item named people who were accused of unsubstantiated illegal activity – host did not challenge Mr Muir when he made the allegations – Mr Muir’s statements went beyond acceptable comment on political activity – unfair – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other significant perspectives – upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – not within the Authority’s jurisdiction to determine allegations of criminal behaviour – decline to determine under section…...