Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-014:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-014 PDF369. 17 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

Complaint Radio Pacific – talkback host Mark Bennett – critical of appointment of gay or lesbian police liaison officer – comments said to encourage denigration – inaccurate – unfairFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – odious comment – obsolete stereotypes – comparators used displayed illegal behaviour – high threshold for breach not attainedPrinciple 5 and Guideline 5c – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 6 and Guideline 6c – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary[1] The appointment of a gay and lesbian police liaison officer in Hamilton was the subject of critical comment by the host (Mark Bennett) in a broadcast on Radio Pacific talkback. The comments were broadcast at about 3. 15pm on Wednesday 15 October 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments that communities in the Far North of New Zealand were an “underclass” whose children would be “feral” and that welfare benefits should be given to stop them having children – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – talkback radio is a robust environment – host’s comments were extreme but encouraged discussion of a legitimate issue – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Māori in the Far North – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments did not stray beyond norms of good taste and decency – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – discussed government’s Te Reo Māori initiatives – host read out email from listener who said that their grandmother had been beaten at school for speaking Te Reo – host stated, “I think this is a myth, to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t know of anywhere this happened....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – item on New Zealand fruit exports to Australia – interviewee said “Who is the World Trade Organisation? They are all Pakeha” – allegedly denigratory of PakehaFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6g (denigration) – comment more expression of frustration at lack of Māori input to finding a solution – not intended to be denigratory of Pakeha – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast Te Karere on 24 June at 6am. Te Karere contained an item about the continuing opposition from Australia to New Zealand apple imports. The item included an interview with Mr Maanu Paul, a kiwifruit grower from Whakatane....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Coast radio station – broadcast of song entitled “Puha and Pākehā” – allegedly encouraged denigration of PākehāFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (denigration) – clearly humorous – not denigratory of Pākehā – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At around 5. 15pm on 5 October 2004, Coast radio station in Auckland broadcast a song entitled “Puha and Pākehā”, recorded by Rod Derrett in the 1960s. [2] The song was a light-hearted tale of Pākehā in early New Zealand being eaten by Māori, and included the following lyrics: I don’t give a hangi for the Treaty of Waitangi, You can’t get fat on that – give me some Puha and Pākehā....

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host commented that Māori Television had complained to the BSA about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast – referred to Māori Television as “racist, separatist, and apartheid” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly opinion – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 16 June 2006 on Radio Pacific at approximately 6. 10am, the host John Banks commented that Māori Television had complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported on a new prenatal test for Down Syndrome. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item discriminated against people with Down Syndrome and was unbalanced because it did not show a situation where identifying a baby with Down Syndrome was viewed positively. Comments suggesting that a low probability of having a baby with Down Syndrome was ‘good news’ were clearly the personal opinions of the interviewees and were not endorsed by the programme. The item itself made no judgement about the test or the outcome of testing in terms of whether a foetus diagnosed as having Down Syndrome was a good or a bad thing. The item was squarely focused on the benefits of the new test in that it was more accurate, and less invasive than other procedures....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News: Firstline – newsreader interviewed a representative of the 'Occupy Wellington' protest movement – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – newsreader’s approach challenging but not unfair – interviewee adequately expressed his viewpoint and defended the position of the protestors – interviewee not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – newsreader’s comments did not amount to points of fact – interviewee’s perspective included so viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – comments did not carry the necessary invective to encourage discrimination or denigration against the protestors as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-086 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J B WILLIAMSON of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 106/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANCIS FISCHER of Dipton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about the statement, ‘[Trump and] his fervent love of supporting Israel. The people, that by design, the genocidal maniacs. ’ The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s finding that the comment had the potential to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Israeli people. It found the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaint, apologise to the complainant, and counsel the host on the importance of exercising care when discussing political matters and ensuring sections of the community are treated with respect and dignity, was sufficient in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration (Action Taken)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with an Israeli soldier on Morning Report breached several standards. The complainant alleged statements made by the interviewee were inaccurate, discriminated against Palestinians and Middle Eastern people, and were offensive and disturbing and unbalanced. The Authority found that the statements of the interviewee were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply and, if not, the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The Authority also found the comments were not directed at Palestinians and Middle Eastern people and were, in any event, serious comment, analysis or opinion to which the discrimination and denigration standard does not apply; the comments did not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency; and the interview did not breach the balance standard noting it was clearly signalled as presented from a particular perspective....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 46/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF AUCKLAND Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...