Search Rapua

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a segment on 7 Days which made a joke referring to a picture of Prince Philip, shortly after his death. The Authority found the segment did not contain any material outside of what viewers could reasonably expect from the programme (as a long-running comedy show based on finding comedic elements in the news of the week, audiences are well-familiar with its format and style of content and humour), and did not cause any harm justifying the restriction of freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding comments made by Louise Wallace about overweight people, during a panel discussion on AM. The complaint was that the comments were in extremely bad taste and denigrating and discriminatory towards ‘fat women’ in particular. The Authority accepted the comments clearly had the potential to offend. However, noting in particular that the programme hosts challenged Wallace’s comments and made countering remarks, the Authority concluded that the comments did not meet the high threshold for finding the broadcast caused harm at a level that justified regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency...

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Cold Feet, a British comedy-drama series which followed the intertwining lives of three couples at different stages in their relationships, contained sex scenes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the sex scenes breached the children’s interests and good taste and decency standards. Cold Feet was not targeted at child viewers, it was classified Adults Only and broadcast during an appropriate timeband, and was preceded by a specific warning for sex scenes. The level of sexual content was not overly explicit and was justified by the episode’s narrative context. Overall the broadcaster adequately ensured child viewers could be protected from adult content, and the episode would not have offended or surprised the general viewing audience....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the hosts discussed their conversation with a guest the previous day who was described as a successful voice coach, and who gave tips about putting on a ‘sexy voice’. One of the hosts prank called two phone sex chat lines and spoke to the operators to see whether they used a ‘sexy voice’. One of the operators he spoke with was the complainant, who discussed practical aspects of the service, including how calls were conducted and paid for. A distinctive sound could be heard in the background of the call. The Authority upheld a complaint from the operator that this broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a reference to ‘the heebies’ in a Newshub item canvassing reactions to Judith Collins’ appointment as leader of the National Party. The reporter asked then National MP Paula Bennett on camera, ‘Will this give Jacinda Ardern the heebies, do you reckon? ’ The complainant argued the term could be interpreted as offensive slang for Jew. The Authority considered most viewers would have understood the term as common slang used to express a feeling of nervousness or anxiety, rather than embedding derogatory connotations about Jewish people as a section of the community. Given the ambiguity around the term’s origins, it found its use in the context was unlikely to encourage discrimination or denigration, or threaten community standards of taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a promo for Checkpoint, broadcast after the 8am news on 11 May 2021, which included soundbites, showcasing the previous day’s news, concerning a supermarket stabbing in Dunedin. The complaint alleged the promo sensationalised news that was no longer current, suggesting another stabbing had occurred, and unnecessarily repeated scenes of violence when affected families were still suffering and children were likely to be listening. In its context, the Authority found the promo content was not likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and did not breach the children’s interests standard. The programme information, violence and balance standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the promo for Hustlers which was broadcast during the movie Minions. The promo did not breach the good taste and decency or children’s interests standards as it was consistent with the PG classification for Minions. Child viewers were unlikely to understand the adult themes, and the promo did not contain nudity or explicit sexual content. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a Newshub report regarding government employees accessing pornographic sites while at work breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Newshub report included images of web addresses for the sites accessed. The Authority noted the public interest in the prevalence of, and harm caused by, pornography and considered that the content was within audience expectations for the news. In the context, the item was unlikely to cause widespread offence or undermine community standards and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding comments made by the presenters of The Project about Taika Waititi and Chris Hemsworth. The presenters asked Kanoa Lloyd, who was at the Sydney premiere of Thor: Love and Thunder, about her experience interviewing the actors and ‘which one was hotter’ of the two. Lloyd said she embarrassed herself in front of the actors as she was talking about Hemsworth’s butt in the interview and that she preferred Hemsworth ‘just because I've seen the full Chris, and that's hotter to me’. The complainant considered the discussion was inappropriate ‘in our current #metoo society’. The Authority acknowledged societal issues surrounding sexual harassment and concerns regarding the normalisation of female-to-male sexual objectification. However, the comments in this instance did not go beyond audience expectations of The Project....

Paul France declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – afternoon host made comments about Green Party MP Keith Locke – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – viewers would have realised comments were host’s and callers’ interpretation of Mr Locke’s stance – public figures are open to criticism – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Newstalk ZB’s afternoon show, broadcast between 1pm and 4pm on 5 January 2009, the host started a discussion about Green Party MP Keith Locke, saying: Keith Locke’s another one. He’s an apologist for terrorism....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Outrageous Fortune – scene in which two actors have sex in a video store – scene in which male character was touching the female character in a sexual manner – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Outrageous Fortune, a comedy-drama series about a one-family crime wave trying to go straight, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on 14 November 2006. The episode was preceded by a warning which said: This programme is rated adults only and is recommended for a mature audience. It contains sexual material and language that may offend some people....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 49/95 Dated the 15th day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HEATHER MINNIS of Marton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-120 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RACHEL MEDUSA of Dunedin Broadcaster RADIO ONE 91 FM Dunedin S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Monica Lewinsky was interviewed by Kim Hill on National Radio on 15 March 1999 just after 9. 00am, following the release of the book which dealt with her relationship with President Clinton. Simon Boyce of Paraparaumu complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that one of the interviewer’s questions was unfortunate and inappropriate. He maintained that the interviewer had a history of asking her guests sexually explicit and intimate questions which were clearly embarrassing. In his view, this interview breached standards R2 and R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. RNZ responded that in the context of an interview with Ms Lewinsky, the language used had not breached the requirement to observe standards of good taste and decency....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-072 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEN FRANCIS of Hamilton Broadcaster CONTACT 89 FM LIMITED (Hamilton) J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....

An item on Breakfast discussed Novak Djokovic, his recovery from COVID-19, his comments regarding efforts to contain the virus, and the others infected at a tennis tournament he organised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the presenter’s description of Mr Djokovic as ‘a dick’ breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found the use of the word would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community values. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...