Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – satirical take-off of documentary Super Size Me – presenter purportedly eating nothing but Middle-Eastern food for a month – developed stereotypical Muslim characteristics – ultimately ended up as Islamic terrorist – allegedly denigratory of Muslims FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g (denigration) – item clearly satirical – intended to satirise not only Super Size Me but also media’s stereotypical portrayal of Muslims and Islam – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On Eating Media Lunch on 22 July 2004, at 9:30pm, presenter Jeremy Wells satirised the recent documentary film, Super Size Me, in which the filmmaker ate nothing but McDonalds for 30 days and measured the effects on his health....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes – however the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – attempt at humour and satire – freedom of expression outweighed potential harm caused – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – guideline 7a provides exemption for humour and satire – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-030:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-030 PDF652. 8 KB...

The Authority upheld a complaint that a Checkpoint report summarising the complainant’s submission at a Waitematā local board public meeting was inaccurate and unfair to her. The item reported that ‘the sparks continued to fly when activist Lisa Prager described how she had claimed mana whenua status in her bid to save the trees [on Ōwairaka Mt Albert] but now regrets the move. [One] board member… refused to thank Ms Prager for her submission because, she said, her comments were “a bit racist”. ’ The Authority agreed with Ms Prager that the use of the word ‘regrets’ did not accurately reflect her view expressed at the meeting: “. . . I retire any claim to being mana whenua whatsoever. But I have no regrets in standing up and initiating the conversation. . ....

The Authority did not uphold two complaints that comments made by Mike Hosking during his Mike’s Minute segment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. Discussing two recent immigration policy decisions by the Government, Mr Hosking commented, ‘discrimination is no bad thing’ and, ‘Where do too many of the radicalised nutters come from? That particular part of the planet [Africa and the Middle East]. . . We don’t want to take the risk of a poor-ish person’s parent arriving – so why a jihadist? ’ The Authority acknowledged the complainants’ concerns that Mr Hosking’s choice of language was inflammatory. However, it found that in the context of the item, which carried public interest, the comments complained about were brief and moderated by the remainder of the item. Mr Hosking was expressing his genuinely held opinion on a legitimate issue, rather than being malicious or nasty....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard in relation to comments about a celebrity dining at an Indian restaurant on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The complaint alleged comments made by the host were racist, including questioning how a $97,000 bill could be possible at an Indian restaurant and questioning the choice to go there. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required for a breach of the standard.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

SummaryDuring the course of the evening’s broadcast on The Rock on 28 June 1999, reference was made to a computer image of "a Dalmatian shagging a chick" and an All Black’s sexual orientation. The word "fuck" was used on several occasions in a broadcast on The Rock during the evening two weeks earlier – on 14 June 1999 – and a female caller who objected to being called "a dozy bitch" was told to "fuck off" if she did not like it. Mr Bartlett complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that it had breached the Broadcasting Act by using discriminatory, unfair and indecent language. He cited a number of specific instances which he asked the station to address. The station’s programme director responded that the show was targeted at an audience of males aged between 18–39 years and that its style appealed to them....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-072 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY of Auckland Broadcaster ACCESS COMMUNITY RADIO AUCKLAND INC S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with Larry Baldock about the citizens-initiated referendum on smacking – host asked the interviewee a question nine times challenging him to give an answer – host interrupted interviewee on several occasions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – host played the role of devil’s advocate – significant points of view presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee was robustly challenged and given an adequate opportunity to express his views – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair and denigratoryFindingsPreliminary findings – Authority applied TVNZ v VoTE approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Authority must consider whether finding a breach of standards would impose unreasonable limitation on free speech Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors favour broadcaster – public interest does not require finding a breach of standards simply because broadcasts lampooned Catholicism – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold in light of protection given to satire in 6(g)(iii) – threshold one of vitriol or hate speech – fact that offence caused of itself insufficient to find breach of standard – programmes not realistic as complainant alleged – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – satirical programmes would only be unfair in…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-008 Dated the 13th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CREDO SOCIETY INC of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-034 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK EDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 101/95 Dated the 12th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN STRINGER of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 89/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JEFFREY RAVEN of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

An application for leave to appeal this decision was refused by the High Court: CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386 PDF59....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-063:Smits and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-063 PDF (366. 06 KB)...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a talkback segment on Overnight Talk, a caller rang up to discuss Metiria Turei’s resignation as Co-Leader of the Green Party in the wake of benefit and electoral fraud allegations. The caller made the remark that, ‘[i]t’s almost a situation where, the Green Party are in a room and Metiria dropped a big, fat, juicy, smelly fart. ’ A complaint was made that the caller’s comments were demeaning and derogatory towards Ms Turei, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, noting that the discrimination and denigration standard applies only to sections of the community, and it does not apply to individuals....