Search Rapua

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the good taste and decency standard about a brief segment on The Project displaying an image of a scented candle developed by celebrity Gwyneth Paltrow. The complaint was that the name of the candle was disgusting and vile and unnecessary to report on. The Authority acknowledged that this content could have been better signposted for viewers, and some may have been surprised by it and found it distasteful. However reporting the name of the candle in itself did not threaten standards of good taste and decency at a level which warranted limiting freedom of expression, taking into account the wider context of the broadcast. The segment reported on a real product available for sale and the item viewed in its entirety was consistent with audience expectations of The Project and its typical style of presentation and humour....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed a five-week, outdoor ‘life skills’ camp held for high school students on Great Barrier Island. Footage of a sheep being restrained to be killed for food, the sheep’s dead body and blood, and the gutting of the sheep was shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the killing of the sheep was ‘brutal’ and unacceptable for broadcast. While the footage was graphic and would not have appealed to all viewers, it was adequately signposted during the item, which enabled viewers to exercise discretion and decide whether to continue watching. The actual killing of the sheep was not shown, and the footage appeared to show standard, accepted practices of killing animals for food in New Zealand....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 41/94 Dated the 9th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WENDY SHEPHERD of Levin Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-028 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by V S PATRICK of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a sex scene in Nip/Tuck in which one of the lead characters had sex with a patient after asking her to place a paper bag over her head was offensive, and should not have been shown at 10pm during the school holidays. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the sex scene was relatively discreet, and had showed a side view with no nudity. The broadcaster noted that Nip/Tuckwas rated Adults Only and had been restricted to a 9. 30pm showing because it contained a greater degree of sexual activity, potentially offensive language and realistic violence. The broadcaster argued that 9. 30pm was adults only time even during the school holidays. The Authority’s DecisionThe Authority said the scene was important to the storyline as it illustrated the central character's decline into sexual dysfunction....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a church’s campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word – “Jesus” and “Christ” repeated a number of times as examples of the language complained about – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – used as an expression of dismay and surprise – accepted colloquial use – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed Standard 6 (fairness) – Pastor Driscoll treated fairly in the item – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up at 7pm on TV One on 12 October 2005 reported that the Rangiora New Life Church had launched a campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – reference to streaking incident during rugby game – host commented that streaker used baby oil “no doubt to prepare himself for the police baton” – alleged breach of good taste and decency, balance, fairness and accuracyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – does not apply to editorial/opinion pieces – not upheld Principle 7 – Guideline 7a (denigration) – police not denigrated – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 8. 00am on 23 March 2004 the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB (Paul Holmes) commented about a streaker incident which occurred during a Super 12 Rugby game at Hamilton Park....

ComplaintNational Radio – Saturday Morning programme – host referred to rock band as "miserable buggers" – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in Principle 1 Principle 1 – language did not refer to anal intercourse or bestiality – acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Saturday Morning programme broadcast on National Radio on 28 July 2001, the host described a rock band as the most "miserable buggers" he had ever seen. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "bugger" was contrary to good taste and decency. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, RNZ noted that the Authority's research showed that almost three-quarters of those interviewed considered the word "bugger" to be acceptable....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion between commentators about New Zealand’s change in government – one commentator recalled overhearing a conversation at Auckland Airport in which a man told some tourists that the former Prime Minister was a lesbian – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were intended to be humorous and ironic – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme not a news, current affairs or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments related to an individual, not to a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Peewee’s Sister – children’s short story about a boy who was being bullied for his school lunch – story contained two parts involving scuffles between characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and social responsibility Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – theme of a bully being beaten by his own tactics of physical force not inappropriate for a children’s story – broadcaster sufficiently considered the story’s effect on child listeners – not upheld Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary A segment in the programme Eurotrash focussed on a "pornography king" and some of his activities. Another segment focussed on a large man whose naked body was treated as a work of art and displayed in some European art galleries. The programme was broadcast on TV4 on 18 February 1999, commencing at 8. 30pm. Ms Gowardman complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that in viewing the segment she was confronted with full frontal and oral sex. The two items depicted shocking and indecent behaviour, and presented young people with incorrect perspectives on adult sexual relationships, she wrote. TV4 responded that the programme was rated AO, and was preceded by a verbal and written warning. The broadcaster denied that the item contained full frontal and oral sex....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-167 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS SORRELL of Darfield Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

In a Seven Sharp item, a presenter expressed his surprise by asking an interviewee ‘how the bejesus did a snake get into New Zealand’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the item breached the good taste and decency standard. While acknowledging terms such as ‘Jesus’ and its variations like ‘bejesus’ may be offensive to some, the Authority found expressions of this nature used as exclamations, will not likely cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 39/95 Dated the 29th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILIP MORRISON of Timaru Broadcaster RADIO OTAGO LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-122 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by G L BROWN of Nelson Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-176 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An episode of Dharma and Greg was broadcast on TV2 on 14 October 1998 between 7. 30-8. 00pm. A male character described two women as "deaf Cockney humpbacks". Mr Kirkland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the portrayal of deaf people in the programme was discriminatory and paternalistic, and perpetuated a stereotypical view about deaf people being stupid. He sought an apology from the broadcaster. TVNZ pointed out that this was a comedy programme in which the two characters regularly assumed character roles. In this case one decided to be a humpback who was hard of hearing while the other adopted a Cockney accent. A male character said to them "Hello deaf Cockney humpbacks". TVNZ said it found nothing in this exchange which suggested that deaf people were intellectually limited, nor anything that would encourage discrimination against deaf people....

SummaryA segment on consumer rights relating to boundary fences was included in Target broadcast on TV3 on 29 August 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. A brief shot of a man’s buttocks was seen in a skit performed by two actors. Dawn Shelford, on behalf of Preserving Communication Standards Trust Inc, complained that she and the members of her group found this segment objectionable. She said they did not consider it appropriate for this segment to have been included in a consumer rights programme as it was "a kind of titillation based on public indecency". TV3 responded that the 7-second view of the actor’s bare bottom was in its view acceptable in the context. It did not agree that the scene was objectionable and exceeded community standards of decency. It declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....