Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two items on 1 News concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine breached the balance, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards. The first item reported on possible war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine, and the second on New Zealand providing further financial and military aid to Ukraine. The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the items, and the accuracy standard was not breached. While the complainant was concerned the broadcasts discriminated against Russian people, the Authority found the broadcasts did not refer to Russian people generally, and rather referred to the Russian government or its military. The fairness standard did not apply. Not upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The Authority has not upheld complaints an interview on Saturday Morning between Kim Hill and Dr Kathleen Stock, a gender critical philosopher, breached broadcasting standards, including the discrimination and denigration, balance and accuracy standards. The broadcast discussed Dr Stock’s perspective on gender identity and her experiences resulting from voicing her perspective, having resigned from her position following a student campaign that accused her of transphobia. The Authority acknowledged the potential harm of the interview, but ultimately found the importance of freedom of expression outweighed any harm caused. The broadcast was clearly signalled as presenting Dr Stock’s perspective, to which she was entitled, and throughout the interview Hill challenged Dr Stock’s views, leaving the audience with a more balanced impression on the issue....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint the use of the term ‘iTaukei’ to refer to indigenous Fijians breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In light of the Authority’s previous finding that a similarly innocuous use of the term did not breach broadcasting standards, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a satirical segment would have been offensive to Christians. The segment was an imagined promo for reality show The Block, set in Jerusalem and featured contestants who shared the names of biblical figures, including Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Thomas and Judas. The promo was broadcast on Good Friday. The Authority did not consider the broadcast’s content would have unduly offended or distressed the general audience, and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The broadcast did not cause actual or potential harm at a level which justified limiting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint a reference to ‘Māori currently waiting 12 months longer than others for surgery’ in the introduction of a 1 News item breached the accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards. The Authority accepted the reference was inaccurate, as it should have said ‘Māori were more likely than others to be waiting 12 months for surgery’ (not waiting 12 months longer). However, the Authority found the inaccuracy was not material, given the item’s focus on the pressures on the health system, potential negative outcomes of long waiting times, and the Planned Care Taskforce’s recommendations to reduce waiting times. In this context, the brief reference to Māori wait times in the introduction was unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. The discrimination and denigration and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 115/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority did not uphold two complaints that comments made by Mike Hosking during his Mike’s Minute segment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. Discussing two recent immigration policy decisions by the Government, Mr Hosking commented, ‘discrimination is no bad thing’ and, ‘Where do too many of the radicalised nutters come from? That particular part of the planet [Africa and the Middle East]. . . We don’t want to take the risk of a poor-ish person’s parent arriving – so why a jihadist? ’ The Authority acknowledged the complainants’ concerns that Mr Hosking’s choice of language was inflammatory. However, it found that in the context of the item, which carried public interest, the comments complained about were brief and moderated by the remainder of the item. Mr Hosking was expressing his genuinely held opinion on a legitimate issue, rather than being malicious or nasty....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Radio Tarana reported on the Sanil Kumar Medical Fund, which had been set up for the treatment of a young Fijian-Indian man in New Zealand who had subsequently been deported to Fiji and died. There were allegations by the immediate family of Mr Kumar and others that the fund was being misused by its directors. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcasts were unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, denigrating and caused panic among the public. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide balance and fairness, no inaccuracies could be identified, the discrimination and denigration standard was not applicable and the broadcasts were not presented irresponsibly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge Morning Show – host read out a listener’s text message: “Dom, your song was so gay I’m pretty sure I just got AIDS from listening to it” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – some listeners would have considered the connection made between homosexuals and AIDS to be offensive and in poor taste – however, in light of the relevant contextual factors such as the target audience and their expectations of content on The Edge, the potential harm to listeners did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – the content of the text message was directed at the host’s song and was not intended as a criticism of homosexuality or as an attack against homosexual people…...

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

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…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Complaints about two broadcasts on Radio Pacific (Mark Bennett talkback) – critical comments by host about Premier House function for actor Sir Ian McKellen – both broadcasts allegedly discriminatory – second broadcast allegedly unbalancedFindings Principle 7, Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments did not encourage discrimination against homosexuals – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in second broadcast – not upheld Broadcasting Act, s. 5(a) – proper procedure for dealing with complaints not followedThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 2 December 2003 at about 3. 30pm, Radio Pacific talkback host Mark Bennett spoke critically about a reception for actor Sir Ian McKellen, which had been held at Premier House....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold complaints that three broadcasts showing fishing and hunting were barbaric and cruel. As the Authority has noted in previous decisions on similar complaints from the complainant, killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life and her concerns are based primarily on personal lifestyle preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about three episodes of fishing and hunting programmes. In general, her complaints were that fishing and hunting are barbaric and cruel. More specifically, she objected to the practices of catch-and-release fishing, live baiting and boar hunting. [2] The issue is whether the broadcasts breached any of the standards set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-081:Woolerton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-081 PDF305. 42 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Worldwatch reported on a request from the Iraqi Prime Minister to President Obama for continued assistance in defeating Islamic State militants in his country. Another item reported on a rally which took place in Nigeria's capital to mark the first anniversary of the abduction of some 200 school girls by the 'terrorist group Boko Haram'. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of the terms 'Islamist terrorism' and 'terrorist' was selective and denigrated people who follow Islam. The references were accurate, did not carry any invective and were not exclusive to Islamic groups so the programme as a whole could not be considered to encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, all people of the Islamic religion. The complainant did not specify who he believed had been treated unfairly....