Search Rapua

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”....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – host is said to have stated that he supported invasion of Iraq and that Iraqis in New Zealand who did not do so should leave – bad taste – encouraged denigration FindingsPrinciple 1 and Guideline 1a, Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – conflict as to content of host’s comments – no tape – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] In comments about the invasion of Iraq, the host (Paul Henry) on Radio Pacific is said to have stated that the invasion had the support of Westerners. Moreover, the complainant reported, the host stated that Iraqis in New Zealand who did not support the invasion should leave the country. The comments were said to have been broadcast at about 6. 45am on 11 April 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News: Firstline – newsreader interviewed a representative of the 'Occupy Wellington' protest movement – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – newsreader’s approach challenging but not unfair – interviewee adequately expressed his viewpoint and defended the position of the protestors – interviewee not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – newsreader’s comments did not amount to points of fact – interviewee’s perspective included so viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – comments did not carry the necessary invective to encourage discrimination or denigration against the protestors as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about dispute between two local councils in Manawatu region – stated that “Horizons Regional Council is taking Palmerston City Council to Court because it says the city is polluting the Manawatu River with sewage” – out-of-focus image of cattle grazing was displayed during the introduction to the item – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – image of cattle was blurry and difficult to discern – was used as visual wallpaper for introduction to item relating to pollution in rivers – image was not related to the item, but the item made it clear the focus was on pollution from sewage so viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – farmers are not a section of the community to which the standard applies – not upheld This…...

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one caller expressed views opposing drilling including the fact drilling resources were sent to China who manufactured it into ‘crap’. Later in the programme, the host sarcastically referred back to the caller’s comments, referring to the ‘Damn Chinese’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were offensive and disrespected Chinese people. The host was being sarcastic, and was actually defending China, not being derogatory. In any case the comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Chinese people. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one topic of discussion was proposed offshore drilling in Taranaki....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-030:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-030 PDF652. 8 KB...

The Authority received a complaint about a promo for a scheduled programme Seven Sharp which was viewed on TVNZ’s Facebook page. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under s11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority acknowledged that it raised complex issues of jurisdiction arising from the online environment, which had not yet been determined by the Authority. Taking into account its assessment of the substance of the complaint, which it considered was unlikely to result in a finding of a breach of standards, the Authority declined to determine the complaint. Declined to determine: Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 59/94 Dated the 2nd day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-066: The New Zealand Jewish Council and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1993-066 PDF (515. 53 KB)...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During his talkback show, host Leighton Smith in a conversation with a caller about the impact of cultural and religious beliefs on others, asked, ‘How do you think the Muslims will fit into that? ’ He then repeated the question as, ‘How do you think the beheaders will fit into that? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promoted anti-Islamic sentiment and was extremely offensive. While the comment was objectionable, it was relatively brief and not repeated, and did not reach the high threshold necessary to constitute hate speech or encourage discrimination or denigration. Mr Smith was also apparently questioned about the comment by the programme producer and he attempted to explain what he meant....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-039:Thai Community and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-039 PDF...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Several weeks before Waitangi Day, during Mike’s Minute on Newstalk ZB, host Mike Hosking made comments critical of Ngāpuhi leader Kingi Taurua and his stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mr Hosking also suggested that the Prime Minister should ‘flag Waitangi’ because it is an ‘annual ritual of abuse and anger and ignorance’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item encouraged discrimination against Māori and Ngāpuhi and was unbalanced. While the Authority recognised that Mr Hosking’s comments could be considered by some to be insensitive, they were clearly his opinion and protected under the right to freedom of expression. The comments were not framed as reflecting on Māori generally and did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration....