Search Rapua

ComplaintMotorway Patrol and promo – incident involving the complainants’ vehicle – complainants identifiable – breach of privacy – unfair – encouraged discrimination FindingsStandards 3 – privacy – no uphold Standard 6, Guideline 6b – not unfair to inadvertent participants who do not consent as events of public interest occurred in public place – no uphold, Guideline 6f – humiliation self-inflicted – no uphold, Guideline 6g – neither discrimination or denigration encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The loss of a trampoline off the roof of a vehicle as it drove across the Auckland Harbour Bridge was the incident dealt with in a promo for, and in the first segment of, Motorway Patrol broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 11 April 2002. Motorway Patrol is a reality series which records the work of police patrols on the Auckland motorways....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – media commentator referred to article in Investigate magazine which raised questions about the sexuality of a public figure – commentator said the named public figure was not a “poof” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated homosexuals FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principle 7 – denigration of homosexuals was essence of the complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Media commentator Phil Wallington reviewed the media on National Radio’s Nine to Noon each week during 2006. On 19 September 2006, he was highly critical of the manner in which the magazine Investigate had raised the issue of the sexuality of a public figure....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-047 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN LUCY of Havelock North Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

ComplaintPaul Holmes Breakfast Show – barrage of jokes against French and German military – racist and offensive Findings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – no discrimination – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A barrage of jokes relayed on the Paul Holmes Breakfast Show between 6. 00–8. 30am by its presenter, Paul Holmes, was broadcast on The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) on Friday 14 February 2003. The jokes targetted the French and German military. [2] Sylvia Shepherd complained to TRN, the broadcaster, that the jokes were racist, anti-French and offensive. [3] In response, TRN stated that the jokes, which had previously been published in the Sun newspaper in Britain did not encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, the French and were legitimate examples of humour or satire....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – news reader stated “What is wrong with these people, I ask”, with reference to Richie McCaw and others declining invitations to Royal wedding – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complaint frivolous – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Wednesday 27 April 2011, reported on Prince William and Kate Middleton’s plans following their upcoming wedding. At the end of the item, the reporter stated: And just this morning we’ve heard that a third wedding guest has returned his invitation....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline – item reported that Jeremy Clarkson had apologised for his comments that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of law and order, discrimination and denigration, and violence standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item was a straightforward news report about Mr Clarkson’s comments – broadcasting the comments did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – re-broadcasting Mr Clarkson’s comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Introduction [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about recent release of controversial Barbie doll – panellist suggested there was a market in the Muslim world for “terrorist Barbie”, and in response the host suggested “suicide bomber Barbie” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists were offering commentary and opinion in a satirical manner, making the point that the marketers of Barbie dolls were smart to release controversial Barbies – comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Muslims as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were light-hearted and intended to be satirical/a joke – most viewers would not have been offended or distressed by the comments taking into account the context – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline and 3 News – news items reported on release of convicted sex offender Stewart Murray Wilson – referred to Mr Wilson as “the Beast of Blenheim” and “the Beast” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to individuals and organisations so cannot be considered in relation to prisoners in general – label was assigned to Mr Wilson and the nature of his crimes many years ago and has been used extensively throughout the media – it has become a well-known nickname and the broadcaster cannot be held responsible for its continued use – broadcasts also contained Mr Wilson’s legal name – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – use of the label “the Beast of Blenheim” and…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-055:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-055 PDF429. 31 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jeremy Wells' 'Like Mike' skit on the Hauraki Breakfast show, in which he parodied radio and television presenter Mike Hosking, Mr Wells made various comments about Māori people and Stewart Islanders. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were racist, offensive and degraded Māori and Stewart Islanders. The item was clearly satirical and intended to be humorous, and was consistent with audience expectations of the programme and the radio station. As satire, the item did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Māori or Stewart Islanders and this form of speech is a legitimate and important exercise of the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....

The Authority declined to determine two complaints as they did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that warrant a determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...