Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME was insufficient, after it upheld a complaint about language used in an interview on The Nutters Club. The interviewee told his story of overcoming drug addiction and offending, and now working to help others do the same. After saying, ‘Excuse all my language I use, too, it will get a little bit worse, it’s just how it is when you remember’, the interviewee used the words ‘fuck’, ‘shit’, and ‘arse’ (and variations of these) repeatedly. The Authority determined it would not have found a breach of the standards in the first instance, in the context of the broadcast....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A campaign clip for the Ban 1080 Party (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) was broadcast on 10 September 2017 on Māori Television. The clip featured a voiceover discussing the purported use and effects of sodium fluoroacetate (1080 poison) on New Zealand’s flora, fauna and waterways, accompanied by footage of animal carcasses and 1080 baits in water. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the election programme was misleading and breached the Election Programmes Code and the Free-To-Air Television Code. The Authority found that the election programme did not contain statements of fact that were misleading, inaccurate, or indistinguishable from opinion. The claims made within the context of the broadcast were statements of political advocacy and opinion, made for the purpose of encouraging voters to vote for the Ban 1080 Party....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-036 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ARCHIE DIXON of Whangarei Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 67/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IAN PRESTON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Dr Patu Hohepa, the Commissioner of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, was co-opted as a person whose qualifications and experience were likely to be of assistance to the Authority. He took part in the Authority’s deliberations but the decision is that of the permanent members. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Toi Whakaari – kapa haka group performing haka which included a whakapohane – exposed buttocks – allegedly unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – traditional cultural event presented in a stylised manner – not disturbing or alarming for children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A kapa haka group performing a haka was shown in an episode of Toi Whakaari broadcast on Māori Television at about 6. 40pm on 9 May 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of women with bare breasts, and women in their underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of semi-naked women were not sexualised or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme classified PGR – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 7 September 2007, contained video footage of women with bare breasts and women in their underwear. [2] The episode was preceded by a visual and verbal warning that stated: This programme is rated PGR....

ComplaintNews item about magazine for divorced people – offensive behaviour – picture of nude couple having sex FindingsStandard G2 – not inappropriate subject matter – momentary image – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Divorced people were providing a new market for entrepreneurs in the magazine industry, according to a news report on One News broadcast on 28 September 2000 at about 6. 20pm. Pages which were shown from a magazine included a picture of an apparently nude couple. Glenyss Barker, secretary of Viewers for Television Excellence (VOTE), complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the picture, which she said showed a nude couple having sex. She said it was inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children would be watching television....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Simpsons – use of the words “wanker” and “ass” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – PGR classification – PGR timeslot – words used in satirical rather than abusive manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Simpsons screened on TV3 at 7pm on 30 September 2004. At the beginning of the programme Homer Simpson described his favourite programme about a family of English soccer hooligans, saying “if they’re not having a go with a bird they’re having a row with a wanker”. [2] Later in the episode another character said “it’s a beautiful day to kick your ass”....

ComplaintTeachers – promo – reference to periods, sanitary towels and tampons – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – time of broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the series Teachers was broadcast during the screening on TV One of the Led Zeppelin concert The Song Remains the Same, which started at 10. 30pm on Saturday 5 April 2003. [2] G E Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the references to periods, sanitary towels and tampons in the promo, broadcast without warning, were offensive. [3] Initially TVNZ treated the complaint, in error, as an informal one. When it responded to the formal complaint, TVNZ contended that the references were not inherently offensive and, furthermore, had been broadcast more than two hours after the 8. 30pm watershed. It declined to uphold the complaint....

The Authority upheld a complaint that a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Dasam Granth Da Sach breached the good taste and decency, violence and law and order standards. During the segment, the host made threatening comments, directed at members of a Sikh sect in response to recent violent incidents in India. The Authority found the comments undermined widely shared community standards, considering their seriousness, specificity and other contextual factors. The Authority also found the comments actively incited violence and promoted disrespect for the law within the specific community of listeners. The Authority recognised the value of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression but found the potential for harm justified a restriction of this right. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order Orders: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, in which Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall fund was described as ‘essentially his private slush fund’. The complaint was that this description was inaccurate and suggested illegal practices. In the context, given the public’s general understanding of ‘slush fund’, and the discretionary nature of the Duchy of Cornwall fund, the Authority found the use of the term was not inaccurate or misleading. The Authority also found this term did not undermine widely held community standards, and the balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Seven Sharp in which Hilary Barry made comments about the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and about ‘anti-vaxxers’, including suggesting those who do not want to be vaccinated could ‘jump on a ferry and go to the Auckland Islands for a few years, and then when we’ve got rid of COVID-19…come back’. The complaint alleged these comments breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards, by suggesting the safety of the vaccine was almost without question, and denigrating those with a different view. The Authority found Ms Barry’s comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. It found the broadcast did not address a controversial issue so the balance standard did not apply....

Summary The film Bad Boy Bubby included scenes in which the character, Bubby, was shown blocking the nostrils of a cat and, later, tightly wrapping the cat’s body in plastic wrap. The film was broadcast on TV2 on 10 April 1999 at 1. 55 am. Ms Thorpe complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that she was upset and disturbed by the scenes showing what she called cruelty to the cat. The scenes, she wrote, involved a real cat and their broadcast could have given some viewers the incentive to copy the actions which were portrayed. TVNZ responded that the film was an intense and discomforting black comedy portraying a character whom the conventions of society had passed by. It was scheduled for broadcast well after midnight because of its disturbing nature, and was rated AO, it said....

SummaryAn episode of Hollywood Sex was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 26 August 1999. This two-part programme looks at some of the more unusual activities which take place in Hollywood’s sex industry. Mr Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contravened standards of decency, and that young people could watch and be influenced by "the very bad aspects of the programme". Mr and Ms Curtis complained that the programme was "the most disgustingly blatant sexual perversion [they had] ever had the misfortune to see", and that the programme was unsuitable for screening at that hour because of the likelihood of children watching. In its responses to the complaints, TVNZ said that it did not consider that it had breached any broadcasting standard. It noted that the programme was broadcast at 9. 30pm, carried an AO certificate, and was preceded by a warning....