Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

ComplaintVoice of Islam – comments about homosexuality and AIDS – discrimination/denigration – incited hatred, intolerance and violence toward homosexualsFindingsStandard 6 and Guideline 6g – hate speech – encouraged discrimination and denigration – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] A lecture titled “Challenges Facing Muslims in the New Millennium” was broadcast on Voice of Islam on Triangle Television between 3. 00pm and 4. 00pm on Monday 29 September 2003. [2] Mr Clayton complained to Triangle Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme included comments which incited hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals. [3] Triangle Television maintained that broadcasting standards were not breached, as Standard 6 of the Television Code allowed for the broadcast of “genuinely held opinion”. [4] Dissatisfied with Triangle Television's decision, Mr Clayton referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – host Larry Williams – guest Michael Laws – New York terrorist attack – President Bush's actions described as pathetic – ignorant and offensive comments FindingsPrinciple 7 – nominated by broadcaster – inappropriate Principle 5 – correct standard – comments not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The terrorist attack in New York City on 11 September 2001 was the topic discussed on Newstalk ZB between host Larry Williams and commentator Michael Laws at about 6. 20pm on 14 September 2001. During the discussion, Mr Laws described President George Bush’s actions as "pathetic". [2] Murray McEwan complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that Mr Laws’ comments were "appallingly" ignorant and offensive. He deplored the host’s response who had allowed the guest’s remarks to go unchallenged....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SPECTRUM of Nelson Broadcaster BAYS TELEVISION LIMITED of Nelson J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on The Project, the hosts discussed a new artificial intelligence technology capable of detecting a person’s sexual orientation through analysis of their facial features. In response, presenter Jesse Mulligan commented, ‘That’s an amazing story, a computer can tell if you’re gay or not. I hope the computer can keep a secret. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment ‘perpetuated the prejudiced view that homosexuality [was] something to be kept secret and… shameful’. The Authority found that, while Mr Mulligan’s comment could be seen as ‘clumsy’ or tactless, it was clearly intended to be humorous and it did not actively encourage the different treatment, or devalue the reputation of, gay people as a section of the community....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about an item on Mike Hosking Breakfast. The complainant was concerned about a discussion of unvaccinated health workers, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainant’s personal views and in all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a news item on Newshub Live at 6pm was insensitive and encouraged the denigration of Christians. The item covered the controversy around an Australian advertisement, which featured two Roman soldiers asking Jesus on the cross to consent to organ donation via an app. The Authority found that while the advertisement made light of the crucifixion, the news item itself was a balanced discussion of the controversy that did not contain any statements encouraging the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-188 Dated the 18th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET CHAPMAN of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-146 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAEME ANDREWS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on The AM Show, in which a booth designed to enable doctors to perform discrete testicle examinations was likened to a ‘confession booth’, breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority found that, in the context of the segment, the comparison was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. It also did not reach the level of malice or nastiness necessary to denigrate a section of the community. The public health message in the broadcast was an important one and overall the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

SummaryWWF Raw and WWF Summerslam were broadcast consecutively on TV4 on 11 September 1999, from 8. 30pm to12. 00am. These programmes featured professional wrestling bouts which had been staged in front of live audiences. Mr Bridgman, Ms Crombie, Mr Little and Mr Bonner complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that aspects of the behaviour shown in the programmes breached programme standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination against women, and the effect of programmes on children and violence. TV3 explained that the "fights" in the programmes were choreographed, not real. It described the WWF shows as "neither sport nor drama but a kind of pageant" which it compared to a magic show. TV3 rejected every aspect of the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, the complainants referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on Haitian Vodou – interviewed New Zealand vodou high priest and one of his spiritual children – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – interviewee’s partner could have been identified through their relationship but no private facts disclosed in a highly offensive manner – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – points raised by the complainants were not material points of fact – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Haitian Vodou not an organisation to which the standard applies – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not carry invective necessary to encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, Haitian Vodou believers as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – comment about recent pack rape allegations against Australian rugby league players – host described women who attended parties with rugby league players as “moles” and suggested that they were asking for trouble – allegedly denigrated womenFindings Standard 7 – Guideline 7a (discrimination and denigration) – comment encouraged denigration of women who socialise with rugby league players – not a genuine expression of serious comment – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 7. 55am on 2 April 2004 the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB (Paul Holmes) commented on recent pack rape allegations against a team of Australian rugby league players....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Nine to Noon programme included a segment featuring UK correspondent Dame Ann Leslie. In response to the host’s question ‘What is on your mind this week? ’, Dame Leslie commented on the British Labour Party, its leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Black Lives Matter UK organisation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Dame Leslie’s comments constituted an attack on Mr Corbyn, denigrated the BLM UK activists, and were inaccurate and unbalanced. Mr Corbyn and BLM UK were not treated unfairly, as both could reasonably expect to be subject to robust media scrutiny as a consequence of their public profile. While the item was a current affairs piece to which the balance standard applied, the issues were approached from Dame Leslie’s perspective and listeners would not have expected alternative views to be given....

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...