Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The song 'Anaconda' by Nicki Minaj was broadcast on Humm FM 106. 2, a Hindi radio station, at 3. 30pm on a weekday. The Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast of the song, which contained swearing and sexually explicit language, at this time of day, on this station, would be unexpected and offensive to most listeners. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingNo OrderIntroduction[1] Humm FM 106. 2, a radio station broadcast primarily in Hindi, featured a song (in English) called 'Anaconda' by American rapper Nicki Minaj. It contained swearing and sexually explicit language and was broadcast at about 3. 30pm on a Friday. [2] Jaswin Narayan complained that the song was 'loaded' with 'sexual content and language' that was 'completely inappropriate' for broadcast during the day....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four promos broadcast prior to 8. 30pm – three for programme Bad Girls – one for quiz show How Normal Are You? – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – Bad Girls – material suitable to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You? – material suitable to be rated G – not upheld by majority Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Bad Girls – material appropriate to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Band of Brothers – sex scene broadcast at approximately 8. 40pm – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sex scene constituted strong adult material – shown too soon after the 8. 30pm Adults only watershed – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme’s content appropriate for AO-classified programme broadcast at 8. 30pm – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the mini-series Band of Brothers was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Monday 15 March 2010. The series was based on a best-selling book about a World War II United States Army airborne unit known as Easy Company....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men promo – language of characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour was self-deprecating and in tone of pantomime or slapstick comedy – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo acceptable during PGR programme – correctly classified – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – content of promo did not warrant an AO restriction – not likely to have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the comedy programme Two and a Half Men was broadcast on TV2 at approximately 7. 53pm on Sunday 4 May 2008 during an episode of Ugly Betty (PGR)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic – interviewee and reporter used the term “nutters” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – “nutters” used to refer to person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – viewers would have understood intended meaning of “nutters” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that broadcasting his use of the word ‘prick’ breached standards. The comment was intended as self-deprecating humour, rather than being offensive or abusive, and it was relatively fleeting in the context of the item, which focused on a potential alliance between the Internet Party and the Mana Party. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] During One News, an item about the relationship between the Mana and Internet Parties included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. He was shown addressing the guests, saying: I’ll leave it up to you [the guests] to decide whether I’m a prick or not… [laughter from audience]… hopefully you’ll wait until after the speech....

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed brief visual overview of New Zealand flags – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – complaint frivolous and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Items broadcast on Campbell Live on TV3 at 7pm on 22 and 23 September 2011, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag, which had been a topic of discussion during the Rugby World Cup....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homeland – programme contained brief nudity and sex scene – pre-broadcast warning for “sexual material” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – warning for “sexual material” was adequate to cover the content in the programme – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified and preceded by an adequate warning – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Homeland, a drama series in which the CIA investigates a possible terrorist threat, was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 20 February 2012. At approximately 8. 50pm a woman was shown topless, being interviewed to be part of a Saudi prince’s harem....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-052:Edwards and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-052 PDF263. 01 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-018 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUE WHITE of Lake Hawea Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paddle Pop Begins – children’s cartoon – main character’s name was the same as a brand of iceblock – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 8 (responsible programming) – accept that Streets logo and name of character amounted to branding or marketing – however programme was clearly a children’s cartoon rather than an “advertisement” for the purposes of guideline 8d – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme would not have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of the children’s cartoon Paddle Pop Begins was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 25am on 13 October 2011....

Complaint3 News – item about New Zealand First party convention – Winston Peters described as having "once again played the race card" – inaccurate – unjust and unfair – item lacked balance and impartiality FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate to state Mr Peters played the "race card" – no uphold Standard G3 – item acknowledged right of Mr Peters and his supporters to express their opinions – no uphold Standard G4 – Mr Peters not dealt with unjustly or unfairly – no uphold Standard G6 – item not lacking in balance, impartiality or fairness – no uphold Standard G7 – no deceptive programming practice – decline to determine Standard G13 – no uphold Standard G14 – no uphold Standard G19 – editing did not distort views – no uphold Standard G20 – views fairly presented – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

SummaryA segment on National Radio’s Nine to Noon which featured a review of a book entitled "Four to Score" was broadcast on 1 October 1998. The broadcast had included the host of the programme referring to a character in the book whose surname was "Kuntz". Mr Lord complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character’s surname was pronounced by the host in a manner which was deliberately offensive and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the sensibilities of her audience. In his view, the host should have used the softer Germanic pronunciation instead of what he described as the most distasteful pronunciation possible. RNZ advised that as the word was used once only in the context of a literary review, it had not been used gratuitously....

Complaint3 News – possible cure for cancer – deceptive – misleadingFindingsStandard G7 – not applicable Standard G11 – not applicable Standard G15 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A dietary supplement made from pig pancreatic enzymes was said to provide a possible cure for cancer, according to an item on 3 News broadcast on 11 May 2000 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Murray Tonks complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item lacked scientific credibility and that it was apparent that there was no independently verified research findings which backed the claims made. In his view, the item used a deceptive programme practice and was misleading, as it could have raised false hopes for cancer sufferers....