Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-151 Decision No: 1997-152 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by W G FABER of Gore and C B NOBLE of Wanganui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-043 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY DEPUTY MAYOR of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R TUNNICLIFF of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-086 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J B WILLIAMSON of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-168:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-168 PDF319. 29 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-016 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HUGH BARR of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryA music video entitled "Smack my Bitch up" was broadcast at about 10. 30pm on Havoc on the closedown show of MTV on 7 June 1998. Ms MacKay of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster of MTV, that the video breached several broadcasting standards because of its portrayal of sexual violence, its exploitation of women and its promotion of contemptuous treatment of women. In its response, TVNZ argued that contextual factors, such as the time of day of the broadcast and the intended audience, were relevant when assessing this complaint. In reaching its conclusion that no standards were breached, it maintained that there was no glamorisation of the exploitation of women nor any aspect which demeaned or represented women as inherently inferior. It argued that the main character’s behaviour was seen as unacceptable, and therefore there was no breach of the good taste standard....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item interviewed aid worker Nicola Enchmarch about being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza in which nine activists died – chief Israeli spokesperson interviewed about the raid – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – topic of the raid was a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts and gave reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view on the raid – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – material that was not included did not make the item misleading – complainant did not identify any material points of fact he considered to be inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Israeli spokesperson given ample opportunity to present Israel’s point of view – individuals and organisations taking part or referred to…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Solid Gold FM – comment by radio announcer that Ellen DeGeneres had been chosen as new American Idol judge making her “the second most powerful lesbian on the planet – the first of course being Chris Carter” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment was clearly intended to be a joke – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcast did not contain any material or language that strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment was a joke and would not have been interpreted as a statement of fact – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment was a joke…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – host conducted interview with Dick Pound, founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency – host made three references to Jamaica – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 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. Introduction [1] Checkpoint contained an interview with Dick Pound, the founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment referring to a rugby player as a ‘Jew’ because he was unwilling to pay for his wedding breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority observed that the comment was an example of casual anti-Semitism and such comments can contribute to the normalisation of racism. However, while the Authority considered the comment to be ignorant and disrespectful, in the context it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...