Search Rapua

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....

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...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-038:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-038 PDF377. 55 KB...

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...

Warning: This decision discusses issues of sexual abuse of children and suicide. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that documentary 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth was inaccurate by not mentioning the denomination or titles of school chaplains involved in sexual abuse of students, or a complaint that the inclusion of re-enactments of memories of survivors re-traumatised victims of abuse, promoted sexual offending against children, breached privacy and was unfair to child actors involved. The Authority found that omission to mention the denomination or title of chaplains would not have materially altered the audience’s understanding of the documentary. The Authority also found that the inclusion of re-enactments did not breach the standards nominated, noting in particular that audience members (including survivors of abuse) were given appropriate information to make informed viewing decisions, no re-enactment depicted sexual violence and the offending of paedophiles was condemned throughout....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item on the Government’s rejection of an application to officially change the town of Russell to its original name, Kororāreka. The complainants alleged an interviewee’s comment that those against the name change were ‘usually older… always white’ was racist and ageist; the accuracy of the same statement was ‘questionable’; and the item was unbalanced, biased and unfair by only including interviews with people who supported the name change....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bro’ Town – characters talked about young boy being a “bastard” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme encouraged acceptance of children of single parent families rather than encouraging discrimination against them – legitimate humour and satire – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “bastard” was not used as a swear word – material was acceptable for a PGR-rated comedy programme at 7. 30pm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Bro’ Town, an animated comedy chronicling the misadventures of five Auckland teenagers growing up in the imaginary suburb of Morningside, was broadcast on C4 at 7. 30pm on Monday 15 March 2010. Some of the characters were shown talking in a backyard....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Solid Gold FM breakfast show – host told joke about an Indian person who is greeted at the gates of heaven by an angel who shouts “Jesus, your taxi’s here” – complainant felt joke dehumanised Indian people and was racist – allegedly in breach of social responsibility standardFindingsPrinciple 7 and guideline 7a – joke did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Indian people – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On the morning of 27 March 2006, the host of the Solid Gold FM breakfast show made the following joke after saying “I think it’s funny, I hope it doesn’t offend you”: [2] An Indian goes up to heaven, and the angel at the gates says “Yes, what do you want? ”, and the Indian says “I’m here for Jesus!...

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – derogatory comments about United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan – including reference to Mr Annan as “cheeky darkie” – racist – offensive – breach of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate – broadcaster upheld complaints – breach of good taste and racist – apologies – dissatisfied with action taken on aspects upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld; interview with Dr Brian Edwards about women in journalism – host’s references to female journalists – sexist Findings(1) Action taken on Principles 1 and 7 regarding comments about Mr Annan – action taken sufficient – no uphold (2) Principle 2 – appropriately considered under Principle 7 – no uphold Principle 4 – editorial opinion – not applicable – no uphold Principle 5 – appropriately considered under Principle 7 – no uphold Principle 6 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Principle 7 – comments about female journalists – threshold not…...

ComplaintLive to Air: an Election Drama – radio play – National Radio – use of words "God" and "Jesus Christ" as expletives – offensive language – blasphemy FindingsPrinciple 1 – context – no uphold Principle 7 and Guidelines 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f – only Guideline 7a relevant – threshold not achieved – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Live to Air: an Election Drama was the title of a fifty minute-long radio play broadcast on National Radio at 4. 05pm on Sunday 28 July 2002. The dialogue on occasions used the words "God" and "Jesus Christ" as expletives. [2] Stella Anne McArthur complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the irreverent use of holy names. She described their use as offensive....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-050:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-050 PDF632. 24 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Newstalk ZB on 2 April 2014, in response to a news item reporting that the average New Zealand woman weighed 72 kilograms, the host Rachel Smalley could be heard, during an advertisement break, referring to these women as ‘heifers’ and ‘a bunch of lardos’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient, or that the comments breached standards of good taste and decency. Size or weight is not one of the specified sections of the community under the discrimination and denigration standard, the comments were off the cuff and not intended for broadcast, and the host and the broadcaster both issued public apologies....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Talk with Willie and Alison, host Willie Jackson referred to a caller (who seemed to snore, rather than talk, on the other end of the phone) as ‘one of those crackers’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the term ‘cracker’ was a racial slur which discriminated against white people and/or poor white people. The host did not appear to use the term in the way alleged by the complainant, but rather as a light-hearted reference to the caller’s state of mind, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, white people and/or poor white people in this context....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, which discussed a draft film script for the proposed film They Are Us, based on events surrounding the Christchurch terror attack on 15 March 2019. The complainant considered comments made during the broadcast, such as that the script was ‘a misleading and dishonest Americanisation of what happened in this country’ were derogatory towards Americans, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to breach the standard and justify restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...