Search Rapua

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – John Banks – critical of Italian team at America’s Cup – greasy Italians – unfair – offensive language – discriminatory – incomplete tape FindingsPrinciple 1 – offensive – uphold Principle 7 – no uphold OrderCosts to the Crown in the sum of $1000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During his talkback programme broadcast between 6. 00–9. 00am on 23 February 2000 on Radio Pacific, host John Banks referred to an incident which had occurred in the America’s Cup race the previous day when the Italian challenger had experienced a number of mishaps and a crew member suffered a head injury. Among other things, he was said to have described the team as "greasy Italians who should be sunk to the bottom of the Waitemata Harbour....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Politically Incorrect Guide to Teenagers – host commented that teenagers were “mental”, “mad”, “not right in the head” – showed sketch of “Mad Uncle Jack” who had been released from psychiatric facility – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content subject to complaint intended to be humorous and educational rather than offensive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments were host’s personal opinion with regard to teenage behaviour – he was not making a comment on people with mental illness as a section of the community – comments did not contain invective necessary to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under sections 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – Mr Laws interviewed the complainant, Karen Batchelor, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association – Mr Laws accused Ms Batchelor of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements – Mr Laws made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Action Taken – Mr Laws took an overly aggressive approach and continuously interrupted the complainant – he made comments that were personally abusive and accused the complainant of lying – overall complainant was treated unfairly – serious breach of fairness standard – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld Standard 5…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on funding cuts to telephone support service for victims of rape and sexual assault – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on funding cuts to service – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of sexual violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the primary perpetrators of sexual violence and women the victims – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men 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 1989Harry – fictional crime drama series set in South Auckland in which a detective investigated a spate of robberies – allegedly in breach of standards relating to discrimination and denigration, law and order, good taste and decency, violence, and accuracyFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama (guideline 7a) – programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, South Pacific people as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – depiction of criminal activity in fictional drama did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content brief and inexplicit – acceptable in the context of AO-rated programme broadcast at 9....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-063:Smits and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-063 PDF (366. 06 KB)...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of the dairy industry in the Waikato region. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of dairy farming, and breached a number of other broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. The item was not inaccurate or misleading in the ways alleged by the complainant; rather, it focused on instances of bad practice within the dairy industry and did not suggest these were commonplace. Furthermore, the item did not breach the privacy of a local farming family, as they were not identifiable or otherwise referred to in the footage....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order Introduction [1] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged ‘bullying, deception and targeting the vulnerable’. It was reported that the Israeli women staffing the kiosks were working illegally, without work permits. The item was broadcast on TV3 on 1 July 2014....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Orange Roughies – promo – used words “for Christ’s sake” – allegedly blasphemous and derogatory of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – distinct different dictionary meanings of “Christ” - context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration – high threshold not reached – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A promo for the forthcoming drama series Orange Roughies was broadcast on TV One on a number of occasions in mid May 2006. In one of the brief sequences included in the promo, one of the characters exclaimed “you’re married for Christ’s sake! ” as he walked past a parked car containing a husband and wife apparently having sex....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast- host read out viewer feedback that contained joke referring to "Jesus Christ" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and children's interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – "Jesus Christ" used to covey exclamation of light-hearted surprise – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration of Christian people – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children's interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast was broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 23 March 2010. During the viewer feedback segment at 8....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The AM Show, host Duncan Garner and then Newshub political editor Patrick Gower discussed various policies the new Labour Government was considering implementing, as well as legislation it planned to change or repeal. Discussing the ‘three strikes’ law, Mr Gower referred to one of the complainants, Mr Garrett, who was involved in introducing the law, and stated, ‘turned out that he had been stealing dead babies’ identities himself before he came into Parliament’. Mr Garner later clarified that it was ‘one dead baby’. The Authority upheld three complaints that the segment was inaccurate and unfair to Mr Garrett. While the broadcaster acknowledged the statement was inaccurate, the Authority found Mr Garner’s correction was dismissive and perfunctory, and insufficient to correct the error....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four items on Newshub featured stories related to the United Kingdom and/or the British Royal Family. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the Newshub items and the reporters’ comments were biased, unfair and derogatory towards the United Kingdom and/or members of the British Royal Family. The Authority found that the news reports did not contain any material which discriminated against or denigrated any section of the community, or which could be said to be unfair to members of the British Royal Family. The items also did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which triggered the requirement for balancing perspectives to be given, and did not raise accuracy or programme information issues....

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on The Project, the hosts discussed a new artificial intelligence technology capable of detecting a person’s sexual orientation through analysis of their facial features. In response, presenter Jesse Mulligan commented, ‘That’s an amazing story, a computer can tell if you’re gay or not. I hope the computer can keep a secret. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment ‘perpetuated the prejudiced view that homosexuality [was] something to be kept secret and… shameful’. The Authority found that, while Mr Mulligan’s comment could be seen as ‘clumsy’ or tactless, it was clearly intended to be humorous and it did not actively encourage the different treatment, or devalue the reputation of, gay people as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from 20 complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host questioned the teachings of a deceased Sikh religious figure by posing hypothetical questions about how he and his widow, now also deceased, had children. The host implied that, given the leader’s teachings about celibacy, his widow and other family members must have had sex with animals. The complainants alleged that this discussion breached the privacy of the individuals referred to, and was degrading and humiliating. The Authority acknowledged that the segment was in poor taste, but found that the broadcast was not in breach of the standards raised by the complainants....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision]An episode of The Brokenwood Mysteries portrayed a character believed to have Asperger Syndrome as a lead suspect in a murder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast denigrated people with Asperger Syndrome. The programme legitimately employed dramatic licence to develop this fictional character, and the character was not intended as a comment on, or a reflection of, all people with Asperger Syndrome. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An episode of a local murder mystery series, The Brokenwood Mysteries portrayed a character believed to have Asperger Syndrome (Amanda) as a lead suspect in a murder. Amanda was portrayed as intense and socially awkward, which other characters attributed to her possible Asperger Syndrome. Amanda was later proven not to be the murderer....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, host Mike Hosking offered his views on the incident of Prime Minister John Key's repeated pulling of a café waitress' ponytail. He described the waitress' motivations for speaking out as 'selfish' and 'a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks'. The Authority upheld complaints that this was unfair to the waitress. While public figures can expect criticism and robust scrutiny, in the Authority's view the waitress was not a public figure. The format of the 'final word' segment did not allow for a response from the waitress so she was unable to defend herself in this context. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints. Upheld: FairnessNot Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationNo OrderIntroduction[1] In April 2015 there was public disclosure of some conduct of the Prime Minister....

In an episode of Mai Home Run, one of the radio presenters related a story about accidentally taking and not returning a bag containing items, including a gaming console, belonging to Lil’ Romeo. The presenter also disclosed the name of one of the people involved in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached the privacy standard, finding that the named individual was identifiable and would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information disclosed. The Authority also found the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, as it had the potential to significantly damage the named person’s reputation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the law and order standard, finding that in context the broadcast did not encourage or actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour....

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