Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints regarding an episode of Shortland Street were not upheld. In the episode a new character appointed CEO of the Shortland Street hospital commented, ‘Puffed up, privileged Pakeha men drunk on control, terrified of change… we are the future, Esther, not them,’ referring to the hospital’s management. Complaints were made that this statement was sexist, racist and offensive to white men. The Authority reviewed the programme and relevant contextual factors, including established expectations of Shortland Street as a long-running, fictional soap opera/drama, and concluded the character’s statement did not breach broadcasting standards. It found upholding the complaints in this context would unreasonably limit the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness The broadcast[1] A Shortland Street episode featured a new CEO, Te Rongopai, starting at Shortland Street hospital....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintNine to Noon – interview with Linda Clark – blasphemy – "Christ" – offensive language FindingsPrinciple 1 – community generally would not find offensive – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview with Linda Clark, formerly Television New Zealand Ltd’s political editor, on Nine to Noon was rebroadcast on The Best of Nine to Noon at around 6. 45pm on National Radio on 22 December 1999. Rev Campbell complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interviewee had used the word "Christ" as an exclamation. He considered that the language breached broadcasting standards requiring good taste and decency....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 116/94 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: 1997-188 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET CHAPMAN of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An Assignment programme broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 15 July 1999 examined a theory which linked those who abused animals in their youth to violent offences in later years. The documentary included video footage of teenage boys tormenting a dog. It was explained that they had filmed the video themselves. Joanne Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that she was disgusted that the programme included footage of boys subjecting a dog to torture. In her view, it violated the Code relating to the Portrayal of Violence. In addition, she noted that there had been no warning preceding the programme. TVNZ responded that the incident had been edited in such a way as to convey the cruelty inflicted on the animal while avoiding showing what actually occurred....

ComplaintStrassman – ventriloquist – offensive language – fucking FindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – context relevant – freedom of expression – limitations must be justifiable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ventriloquist in Strassman, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 4 July 2000 used the phrase "I wish you had a fucking brain" when he spoke to one of his puppet characters. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of "gratuitous offensive language" contravened the Broadcasting Act's requirement for broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that Strassman was an adult comedy programme broadcast at 9. 30pm which carried an AO certificate and was preceded by a warning advising that it contained strong language. In that context, it did not consider that the language breached standard G2....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Sports Tonight – words “tough” and “disconnect” allegedly used by presenters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and privacy Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order) and 3 (privacy) – adequate response from broadcaster – use of the words did not threaten broadcasting standards in any way – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Friday 25 September 2009. Sports Tonight was broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 30 September 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Closer – scene involving internet sex-chat contained sexually explicit dialogue – use of the word “cunt” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was relevant to the storyline and character development – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Closer, a film based on a play by Patrick Marber which followed the love affairs of two couples, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 10 February 2008....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-012:Wood and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1990-012 PDF452. 75 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The first two episodes of a British dating game show, Naked Attraction, were broadcast on TVNZ 2 at 9. 45pm on Friday 27 October 2017, and 9. 30pm on Friday 3 November 2017. The essence of the programme is that a clothed individual selects a date from six naked individuals, who are gradually revealed in stages from the feet up, with no blurring or pixelation of nudity. Thirteen complainants referred their complaints about these episodes of Naked Attraction to the Authority, complaining that the programme contained a high level of full frontal nudity and sexual discussion, which was offensive and contrary to standards of good taste and decency. The complainants also submitted the programme was broadcast at a time on a weekend night when children were likely to be watching....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – showed magazine photograph which reported that celebrities Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson had moved into a flat together – photograph included women’s Chihuahua dogs – presenter said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together” – allegedly offensive, unfair and deceptiveFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10. 00pm on 5 April 2005, referred to an issue of New Zealand Woman’s Weekly featuring a photograph of celebrity flatmates Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson, and their pet dogs. The presenter referred to the dogs and said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together”. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unfair to the named celebrities....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – 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, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint Mo Show – interview with makers of and participants in a pornographic film – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – gratuitous sexual activities – uphold Standard 9 – not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The making of a pornographic film near Los Angeles was shown in a segment of the Mo Show broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 3 September 2002. The Mo Show is targeted at a young adult audience and features two New Zealand comedians presenting events they encounter in a number of countries, focusing on popular music and film. [2] Lois Durward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment about pornographic film-making near Los Angeles was offensive and unsuitable for younger viewers....

ComplaintSpace – two items about visits to studio which makes porn videos – promoted pornography – offensive and unbalancedFindingsStandard G2 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G6 – not a serious item – satirical – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items on the magazine programme Space showed one of the hosts visiting a business which made pornographic videos and trying to sell a script. The items included some interviews with people in the business, and contained shots of the host in a spa pool with four topless women. The items were broadcast at 10. 25pm on both 1 and 8 June 2001 on TV2. Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the items promoted pornography, and thus were offensive and unbalanced....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ski FM – during 16 July broadcast presenter made comment about sucking diarrhoea out of someone’s bottom with a straw – during 18 July broadcast presenter made comment about drinking pig’s urine – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment about drinking pigs urine puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – comment about sucking diarrhoea out of someone’s bottom with a straw went well beyond what listeners would expect to hear on radio – comment would have offended a significant number of listeners – upheld OrderSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB: Larry Williams Breakfast Show – host said "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" – offensive FindingsPrinciple 1 – colloquialism – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "I don’t want to piss in your pocket" was the phrase used by the host of the Larry Williams Breakfast Show when talking to a guest. The comment was made at about 8. 15am on 18 July 2003 on Newstalk ZB. [2] J H Mahoney complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the phrase, especially at that time of the morning, was disgusting. [3] In response, TRN described the phrase as a "widely used colloquialism" which would not have caused major offence to its primary audience aged 35 years and over....

ComplaintPromo for Pepsi Chart – man shown sitting on lavatory – behaving as if constipated – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Pepsi Chart showed a man sitting on a lavatory and reading a magazine. He was behaving as if he were constipated. It was broadcast on TV4 during the evening of 11 November 2001. [2] Tony Drackett-Case complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo was offensive. [3] In response, TV4 maintained that while it might be outside the expectations of "mainstream" audiences, it was not inappropriate on a niche channel aimed at young adults. It declined to uphold the complaint. [4] Dissatisfied with TV4’s decision Mr Drackett-Case referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Morning Grill – reference to an Authority decision ordering complainant to pay costs to the broadcaster as complaint to broadcaster about use of the word "bugger" was vexatious – "bugger" – offensive language – no tape FindingsPrinciple 1 and Guideline 1a – absence of tape – unable to assess tone – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A decision from the Broadcasting Standards Authority was referred to by the presenters of Morning Grill on Radio Pacific between 6. 00–9. 00am on 31 July 2002. The decision involved the Authority ordering a complainant to pay a broadcaster costs of $150 as the Authority found the complaint about a broadcast which contained the word "bugger" was vexatious. The broadcast on Radio Pacific also used the word "bugger"....