Search Rapua

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging R&R breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness standards. The programme discussed Aotearoa New Zealand’s colonial history. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-046:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-046 PDF591. 9 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-065:Boscott and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-065 PDF191. 79 KB...

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

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 54/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Crowd Goes Wild – presenter made remark about a man with red hair who was attempting to set a new world record for juggling a soccer ball with his feet – allegedly in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – people with red hair not a “section of the community” protected under Standard 7 – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Crowd Goes Wild, a comedic sports news programme, was broadcast on Prime TV at 7pm on Wednesday 27 January 2010. Towards the end of the programme, the presenters reported on an English man and world record holder who was attempting to set a new world record for juggling a soccer ball with his feet while walking 31 miles....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – during interview presenter noted that Māori Party was using “a Chinese lawyer who has a lack of knowledge of Māori process” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s comment was factual and did not carry any invective – broadcast did not encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Te Karere, broadcast on TV One at 4pm on 20 January 2011, the presenter conducted a studio interview with Professor Ranginui Walker about MP Hone Harawira’s position in the Māori Party and the various sources of Mr Harawira’s anger at his party....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-068 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HELEN PATON of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM (AUCKLAND) J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-071 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3 News: Firstline reported on the Westminster Dog Show. In response to a question whether there was a Pit Bull division in the competition, one of the presenters commented, ‘I highly doubt it. Imagine what their owners would look like. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was highly offensive to, and denigrated, Pit Bull owners. Pit Bull owners are not a section of the community, and the comment was clearly an off-the-cuff, light-hearted joke delivered without invective. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] 3 News: Firstline contained a pre-recorded item on the Westminster Dog Show, broadcast on 12 February 2014 on TV3. Following the item, the presenters commented: Presenter 1: Do you think they have a Pit Bull division to these competitions? Presenter 2: I highly doubt it....

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…...

ComplaintPaul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB – derogatory comment about Catholic Church and the Pope FindingsPrinciple 7 and Guideline 7a – intemperate and populist contribution to global debate – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Referring to some recent publicity about priests who were paedophiles, the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB made some highly critical comments about the Catholic Church and the Pope, including describing the Church as rotten to its core. The comments were broadcast at about 8. 20am on 1 July 2002. [2] Kathleen and Patrick McCartain, and Irene Angus, complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster, that while they accepted critical opinion, they did not accept comments in which their faith and beliefs were "ridiculed so blatantly"....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A – host interviewed Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions and John Barnett from South Pacific Pictures about controversy surrounding production of the film The Hobbit in New Zealand – host’s approach towards Ms Kelly allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s approach aggressive but did not extend to personal attack against Ms Kelly – Ms Kelly should have expected to be interviewed robustly about The Hobbit dispute – not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – Ms Kelly given adequate opportunity to present the union’s viewpoint – significant perspectives on the topic presented within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and…...

SummaryThe subject of liable parent contributions was discussed on Nine to Noon on 3 August1993 and unemployment on Morning Report on 13 August 1993. Mr Fudakowski complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the dissenting view given in thediscussion about liable parents was unsourced and therefore was neither balanced norimpartial. With respect to the second item, he complained that comments about theinevitability of long-term unemployment were deeply offensive and lacked balance andobjectivity. In response, RNZ denied that the news items encouraged discrimination against anygroup, or that they were so lacking in balance that they were in breach of broadcastingstandards. Pointing out that the items contained expressions of opinion about matters ofpublic interest, RNZ explained that it could find no justification for the contention that thereporting of those statements imposed an obligation on the broadcaster to undertake anin-depth investigation into the subjects discussed....

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint regarding two broadcasts, relating to threats to public officials over the Government’s use of 1080 (including footage of an anti-1080 protest featuring the complainant), was not upheld. The Authority found the use of the footage, in segments on Newshub and The AM Show, did not result in any unfairness to the complainant. The Authority considered these broadcasts did not link the complainant, or the majority of anti-1080 protestors, to the threats, as both broadcasts stated that the threatening behaviour was from the fringes of the movement. The Authority determined that the audience was therefore unlikely to be misled or misinformed. The Authority also found a comment made by host Duncan Garner during The AM Show segment, implying Willie Apiata should be sent to harm the people who made the threats, did not breach broadcasting standards....

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 1989Michael Laws Talkback – included discussion on a study which showed a link between domestic violence and animal abuse – host made a number of comments that were critical of the women who took part in the study and of women who stayed in violent relationships because of their pets – for example, he said that they were “morons”, “probably deserved to be abused”, and were “born sub-normal” – host made comments that were critical of the White Ribbon campaign – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – talkback is a robust and opinionated environment – host’s approach could be considered offensive and provocative but was for effect and to generate a response – overall, programmes were balanced – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) –…...