Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Graeme Hill Show – included commentary from well-known atheist Pat Condell – Mr Condell made negative statements about religion and those who hold religious beliefs – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues and denigration and discrimination standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – Bill of Rights Act – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked the necessary invective to reach the threshold for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – segment was an opinion piece – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Graeme Hill Show was broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 12. 55pm on Saturday 5 September 2009....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

ComplaintZMFM – game – "Know Your Dairy" – denigrated foreigners – upheld by broadcaster under Principle 7 – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken insufficient – unsatisfactory complaints procedure – warning Principle 8 – tape retention inadequate OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A game called "Know Your Dairy" was broadcast on 91ZM on 9 April 2001. The game invited contestants to call dairy owners to ask a basic question about New Zealand. The telephone calls were then broadcast. S E Burridge complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the game was racist and xenophobic. TRN advised that the game was no longer a part of 91ZM broadcasts, and apologised to the complainant for offending her. Dissatisfied with the action taken by TRN, Miss Burridge referred the complaint 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 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…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host described Minister of Health as a chicken and derelict in her duty – offensive and denigrating FindingsPrinciple 1a – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7a – comments acceptable on talkback – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Minister of Health was criticised for not going to Christchurch to try to settle a threatened nurses strike there. The comments were made by the host (Bill Ralston) on the talkback station, Radio Pacific, between 11. 00am–2. 00pm on 30 November 2001. [2] David Stott complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments, which included a description of the Minister as a "woof" and "chicken", were insulting, denigrating and in poor taste. [3] As Mr Stott did not receive a response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment of Overnight Talk breached several standards. In the programme, a caller to the show queried the validity of the host’s statement that 1400 Israelis had died in the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, and asked what evidence the host had of the attack. The host’s response included suggesting the caller should not be ‘an idiot’, saying he was not going to waste his time, terminating the call and advising the caller that they could see ‘uncensored footage’ of the attack on the ‘deepest, darkest parts of the internet’ if they needed evidence....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment on the Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley morning show breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, the hosts made several jokes and innuendos about the name of Irish airline Aer Lingus and one host, putting on an Irish accent, stated ‘on the menu today, we have potatoes’. The complainant considered the jokes to be offensive to Irish people and culture, and to amount to racism. The Authority acknowledged the jokes had the potential to offend, but did not uphold the complaint, finding the jokes did not meet the threshold for a breach under the discrimination and denigration standard as they were unlikely to encourage the different treatment of Irish people to their detriment, devalue the reputation of Irish people, or embed negative stereotypes. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contestant told a story about punching a boy at school who had Down syndrome – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked necessary invective – attempt at humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme 7 Days was broadcast on TV3 at 10pm on Friday 27 November 2009. The programme involved the host questioning two three-person teams of comedians about various events which had been reported in the media during the week. [2] During the programme, the panellists discussed an event that had occurred in America called “Kick a Ginger Day”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-058 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR GLYN THOMAS of Palmerston North TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Waitangi: What Really Happened – docu-drama about events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Waitangi: What Really Happened was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 6 February 2011. The programme was a docu-drama following the events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus – consulted various experts – challenged traditional Christian view as encapsulated in the gospels – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – issues canvassed in the programme were matters of historical interest as opposed to controversial issues of public importance – authorial documentary approached from perspective of Mr Bruce – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the commonly accepted view of the gospels – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the programme consisted of Mr Bruce’s comment and opinion based on his personal research – viewers would not have been misled – given subject matter of documentary the Authority is not…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a segment on Police Ten 7 breached the discrimination and denigration standard. A man called a woman who had called the police a ‘nosey motherf***ing white c***’. The Authority found in the context of the long-running series, and the particular programme, this comment did not reach the threshold for a finding that it encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

A segment on Sunday Morning interviewed Dr Maxime Taquet to discuss his research on long COVID. The complaint was the segment breached the accuracy, balance and discrimination and denigration standards as it (amongst other reasons) portrayed long COVID as a psychological rather than a neurological disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the broadcast did not imply long COVID was a psychological disorder. It also did not breach the balance or discrimination and denigration standards as the broadcast clearly signalled it was presenting Dr Taquet’s views and did not discriminate against, or denigrate, people affected with long COVID. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by Jack Tame during his morning show including the statement ‘Māori don’t just deserve special treatment, but are contractually guaranteed a form of special treatment under the Treaty’. The Authority found, in context, the comment amounted to analysis to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The comment was not the focus of the discussion, and an opinion-based segment such as this is not required to provide alternate perspectives under the balance standard. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

Summary The words "stick my hard dick up your butt" were reported by the complainant to have been used by an announcer on The Rock at around 10. 20pm on 20 July 1999. The complainant reported that the same announcer used the words "in between the legs" in the course of a discussion about an eclipse of the moon, during the evening of 28 July 1999. The Rape Prevention Group Inc. complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that it had breached Principles 1 and 7 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Rape Prevention Group maintained that the two comments were offensive and harmful to women. It said that being referred to as sex objects and "mere bodies" degraded women. The broadcaster responded that The Rock was targeted at a male audience aged between 18-39 years and that its style appealed to large numbers of that group....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an interview on Saturday Morning, where the host misgendered and ‘deadnamed’ the interviewee, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the host’s words, it found the words were directed at the interviewee as an individual, not a section of society as required by the standard. The Authority, in implying the fairness standard, did not consider listeners would have been left with a negative impression of the interviewee. The potential harm therefore did not reach the threshold justifying regulatory intervention.    Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a news report on 1News breached several standards, by using the phrase Hamas ‘fighters’, rather than Hamas ‘terrorists’. The Authority found the choice of word could not reasonably be said to encourage the different treatment of Jewish or Israeli people, devalue their reputation, or embed negative stereotypes about them. Under accuracy, the Authority found the word was not inaccurate, was not material in the context of the broadcast as a whole, and there was no harm at a level justifying limitation of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and editorial independence. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance and Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on 1News covering a Hobson’s Pledge campaign against bilingual road signage. The complaint was that the coverage was biased and unfair by suggesting feedback using the Hobson’s Pledge template was ‘bad’, trying to influence how people gave feedback, and only interviewing members of the public in support of bilingual signage. The Authority found the broadcaster provided sufficient balance and the item was not unfair, as Hobson’s Pledge was given an opportunity to comment, and its position was adequately presented in the item. The complaint did not identify any inaccurate statement or reasons why the item was inaccurate, and the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...