Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – host spoke to a number of women about their experiences with dowry abuse in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – highlighted problem of dowry abuse and presented experiences of a few women – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccurate statements – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify any group or section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Cruise FM – host interviewed a member of the local district council and made comments that were critical of, and threatening towards, other council members – host also made comments about a rival radio station and, by implication, a staff member there – news item made claims about Deputy Mayor – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host made comments that were personally abusive and threatening – Mayor Neil Sinclair, Deputy Mayor Jenny Shattock, named councillor, Classic Hits and its staff treated unfairly – host’s comments about other council members and staff were brief, general criticisms mainly related to professional capacity and as such they were not treated unfairly – host abused his position by using the airwaves to discredit council members and staff at…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about Sports Chat on RNZ’s Morning Report, during which the guest commentator briefly summarised violence surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match against local Dutch team Ajax in November in Amsterdam, including: ‘the Amsterdam Mayor has come out and said, look, criminals on scooters searched the city for Maccabi supporters in hit-and-run attacks. …said [they were] all antisemitic. ’ The complaint was that RNZ ‘severely distorted’ the context of the events to the point of inaccuracy; discriminated against and denigrated ‘the Amsterdam people who responded to Maccabi’s racist provocations’ and immigrants, by ‘choosing to represent this as antisemitism’; and lacked balance and fairness by excluding Amsterdam locals’ perspective. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the brief summary of the Amsterdam mayor’s response was not materially misleading in the context of Sports Chat, and the remaining standards did not apply....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referring to phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times as an exclamation when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language breached broadcasting standards. It would not have offended a significant number of viewers or adversely affected any children who might have been watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referencing phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup – for example, ‘by God they are playing well’. [2] Craig Davie complained that Mr Henry used ‘foul language’ and was ‘taking the lord’s name in vain’, which was offensive and unsuitable for children....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a discussion on a talkback segment on Newstalk ZB breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the complainant, who had called in to the programme, was not treated unfairly as she was given an opportunity to voice her opinion and was treated respectfully. The Authority also found that the broadcast’s criticism of United States President Donald Trump did not exceed what could fairly be expected to be levelled against a highly controversial United States President. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the accuracy standard does not apply to statements clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. The discrimination and denigration standard also did not apply as it does not apply to individuals or organisations. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Show – guest host read out text message which used the phrase “pre-op tranny” – phrase repeated by a listener who called the show – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard – broadcaster upheld the complaint under Standard 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient considering the nature of the breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-131:Ellmers and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-131 PDF282. 26 KB...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints regarding an interview of American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler by Kim Hill. The interview discussed ‘the debate about who can be classified as a woman’ and used the term ‘TERF’, an acronym meaning trans exclusionary radical feminist, to describe those ‘who oppose transgender as a phenomenon and transgender rights more broadly’, particularly through excluding trans people from women-only spaces. The Authority found the broadcast was not discriminatory towards women and the term ‘TERF’ was used as part of a discussion of the debate and the expression of legitimately held opinion. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about a Newshub item in which the presenter commented, ‘And I thought the only reason we watch Aussie Rules [AFL] was for the short shorts’, has not been upheld by the Authority. The Authority found that the comment, while inappropriate, did not reach the threshold to be considered a serious violation of community norms of good taste and decency. The Authority acknowledged the importance of contextual factors in considering whether the standards have been breached, including the nature of Newshub as an unclassified news programme and audience expectations of the broadcast. The Authority recognised that the statement was not made with malice or nastiness and found the comment did not breach the discrimination and denigration, balance or fairness standards....

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....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about a promo of The Project as the complainant is responsible for identifying the programme the subject of his complaint1 and his complaint did not appear to relate to the identified broadcast content. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration...

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

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 7/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER ZOHRAB of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-045 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOUTH AUCKLAND MUSLIM ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "Finding Family" – violent family relationship described by woman victim – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – discriminated against men FindingsProgramme about family reunification, not spousal abuseStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – no uphold Standard G6 – no uphold Standard G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The theme of Documentary New Zealand: "Finding Family", broadcast on TV One on 31 July 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, was the reunification of family members who had been separated. One woman described how she had become separated from her son when she escaped from a violent relationship some 30 years previously. He was tracked down by the Salvation Army in Australia....

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”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM – item discussed whether men should wear pink clothing – host said “Red, and saying that pink is a form of red is the same as saying male, and then a homosexual is a form of a male” – allegedly discriminatory Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – remarks were intended to be humorous – tone not abusive – did not encourage discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item broadcast on More FM at 8am on Tuesday 5 August 2008, the hosts responded to a caller who rang up to discuss whether it was appropriate for men to wear pink shirts. Bryan McFadden, an Irish singer, appeared on the show as a guest host....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....