Search Rapua

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 1989More FM – item discussed whether men should wear pink clothing – host said “Red, and saying that pink is a form of red is the same as saying male, and then a homosexual is a form of a male” – allegedly discriminatory Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – remarks were intended to be humorous – tone not abusive – did not encourage discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item broadcast on More FM at 8am on Tuesday 5 August 2008, the hosts responded to a caller who rang up to discuss whether it was appropriate for men to wear pink shirts. Bryan McFadden, an Irish singer, appeared on the show as a guest host....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-065:Effron and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-065 PDF372. 4 KB...

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....

ComplaintQueer as Folk – offensive behaviour – homosexuality – paedophilia – offensive language – fuck – blasphemy – God – Jesus Christ; unbalanced – unlawful acts portrayed FindingsStandard G2 – AO time – series challenging – community divided – no uphold Standard G5 – did not condone illegality – no uphold Standard G6 – not relevant Standard G12 – not relevant Standard G13 – no denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Episodes of Queer as Folk were broadcast on TV4 on 8 and 15 March 2000 beginning at 9. 30pm. The 8 March episode showed simulated sex between an adult male and a 15-year-old male, and the 15 March episode included a story line which referred to homosexual activity with the same young man....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – (1) racist remarks – offensive language; (2) denigrated Maori FindingsNo tape provided – unable to determine complaint on merits Principle 8 – relevantOrderCosts of $250 to the complainant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Talkback host John Banks was reported to have made critical references to the contribution by Maori to the millennium celebrations in New Zealand in a programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 17 January 2000 between 8. 15–8. 50am. Hohepa Campbell complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that the host’s comments were offensive and anti-Maori and incited racial disharmony. As he did not receive a response from The RadioWorks within the statutory time frame, he referred the matter to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sean Plunket Morning – host interviewed Dr Paul Connett about his views against fluoridation of water – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial of public interest – period of current interest is ongoing so listeners aware of other views – Dr Connett was given ample opportunity to present his perspective – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interview was robust but reasonable and good-natured – Dr Connett treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community, not individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of an American sitcom Dr. Ken, Dr Ken met his wife’s successful former boyfriend, Dr Kevin O’Connell, and was jealous. At the end of the episode, Dr O’Connell was portrayed as being drunk and asking Dr Ken’s staff for a lift home. The three staff all replied in unison, ‘I’ll do it! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the scene normalised rape and portrayed rape against men as a ‘laughing matter’. In the context of a fictional sitcom, which was intended to be humorous, the scene did not carry any level of invective, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Dr....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An audio clip promoting the ZM radio station stated that ZM played ‘hit after hit after goddamn hit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘hit after goddamn hit’ was offensive to those who hold Christian or other religious beliefs and contrary to children’s interests. The Authority acknowledged that use of the term ‘goddamn’ may have caused offence to some listeners. However, in this case it was used as part of the station’s promotional messaging for playing continuous music and was not dwelt upon. Taking into account the right to freedom of expression, and the context of the broadcast, the term ‘goddamn’ could not be said to have encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, all Christians or others who hold religious beliefs....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – item reported on Labour MP Shane Jones throwing a “Lazarus party” to mark his return to the front bench – presenter commented, “Leaving aside anything about resurrections and dodgy movies in hotels, Shane Jones is actually known for referring to himself in the third person” – presenter’s comment allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter did not make any reference to Christ and nothing in the broadcast would have offended or distressed viewers, or encouraged discrimination or denigration against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by a caller on Newstalk ZB’s Tim Roxborogh show. The caller was explaining why he ‘fell out of love with Cuba’ and expressing disbelief that a place so close to the United States could be characterised by what he described as ‘poverty and the sheer nothingness of everything’, also saying, ‘you’re not in Africa… you are 90 miles from America’. The complaint was that this remark equated the entire African continent and its people with poverty, was discriminatory, and was not challenged by the host. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but found the passing reference by a caller did not reach the high threshold for a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine five complaints about different Newshub Live broadcasts under several standards, on the basis they were trivial, vexatious, or in all the circumstances, did not warrant determination. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial and vexatious, and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy, Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Programme Information, Law and Order...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging Midday Report breached the balance, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and law and order standards. 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): Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Law and Order...

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....

Two complaints about Sean Plunket’s interview of Te Whānau ā Apanui spokesperson Louis Rapihana were upheld under the discrimination and denigration standard. The interview was about the legal basis for iwi roadblocks in the eastern Bay of Plenty under COVID-19 Alert Level 4 and what the iwi intended to do if anyone refused to comply with the travel permit requirement established under Alert Level 3. The Authority1 found Mr Plunket’s approach during the interview and comments made on-air afterwards had the effect of amplifying negative stereotypes about Māori and the potential to cause widespread harm. Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration Orders: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $3,000 costs to the Crown...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...