Search Rapua

In an episode of Rugby Nation, commentator Tony Johnson made a reference to Israel Folau using the phrase ‘the F word’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The complainant argued that the broadcast was harmful to Mr and Mrs Folau. However, as two individuals they are not a recognised section of the community as required by the standard. The discrimination and denigration standard therefore did not apply. The Authority declined to imply the good taste and decency or fairness standards into the complaint on the basis that the original complaint did not raise arguments consistent with an alleged breach of those standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

ComplaintPaul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB – derogatory comment about Catholic Church and the Pope FindingsPrinciple 7 and Guideline 7a – intemperate and populist contribution to global debate – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Referring to some recent publicity about priests who were paedophiles, the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB made some highly critical comments about the Catholic Church and the Pope, including describing the Church as rotten to its core. The comments were broadcast at about 8. 20am on 1 July 2002. [2] Kathleen and Patrick McCartain, and Irene Angus, complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster, that while they accepted critical opinion, they did not accept comments in which their faith and beliefs were "ridiculed so blatantly"....

ComplaintThe Rock – 14 complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings in Part I of DecisionFive complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1; three complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1 and Principle 7; one complaint upheld on basis that action taken insufficient Part I interim decision issued – submissions on penalty called for Submissions on PenaltySubstantive points made by The RadioWorks – "relevant submission" under section 10(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 RadioWorks’ SubmissionBroadcasting Standards Authority in breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – insufficient weight given to freedom of expression – Authority’s approach inconsistent with Court of Appeal’s Moonen decision Broadcasting Act – broadcasters responsible for maintaining standards – Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice developed by broadcasters and approved by Authority Bill of Rights – applies to Authority – applies…...

The Authority has not upheld complaints that action taken by Radio New Zealand Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard about a statement in a news bulletin that a recent ruling by the International Court of Justice had found Israel ‘not guilty of genocide. ’ While the Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaints, it found RNZ had taken sufficient steps in response to the complaints, by broadcasting an on-air correction within a reasonable period after the bulletin at issue, as well as posting a correction to its website. Other standards alleged to have been breached by the broadcast were found either not to apply or not to have been breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Overnight Talk breached the discrimination and denigration, offensive and disturbing content, and fairness standards. A caller to the show advised the host he believed Russia was acting in ‘the least violent way possible’ in its invasion of Ukraine, to which the host responded heatedly, referring to the caller’s opinion as ‘stupid’ and ‘bullshit’. The Authority was satisfied the language used amounted to low-level language, and the host’s comments, while potentially seen as disrespectful by some, did not reach the level necessary to constitute unfair treatment. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply as the comments were directed at the caller as an individual. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness  ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of So Dumb its Criminal broadcast at 9. 30pm on Duke breached the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast, hosted by Snoop Dogg, featured a panel of Black comedians commenting on clips of criminals making ‘dumb’ mistakes. The commentary by the panel included multiple uses of the n-word, jokes about white people and ‘white privilege’, and what appeared to be a reference to a fictional kung fu character when describing one of the people featured. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the n-word, it noted this word has been ‘reclaimed’ by the communities affected by it, and was used in the broadcast by Black comedians joking amongst themselves....

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...

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

SummaryThe subject of liable parent contributions was discussed on Nine to Noon on 3 August1993 and unemployment on Morning Report on 13 August 1993. Mr Fudakowski complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the dissenting view given in thediscussion about liable parents was unsourced and therefore was neither balanced norimpartial. With respect to the second item, he complained that comments about theinevitability of long-term unemployment were deeply offensive and lacked balance andobjectivity. In response, RNZ denied that the news items encouraged discrimination against anygroup, or that they were so lacking in balance that they were in breach of broadcastingstandards. Pointing out that the items contained expressions of opinion about matters ofpublic interest, RNZ explained that it could find no justification for the contention that thereporting of those statements imposed an obligation on the broadcaster to undertake anin-depth investigation into the subjects discussed....

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: 1998-016 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HUGH BARR of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on RNZ’s 9am news bulletin about an electricity shortage in New Zealand breached multiple standards. The complaint focused on the broadcast’s allegedly inappropriate use of terms such as energy, fossil fuels, power and electricity and the omission of contextual information. In the context of the news bulletin, the Authority found RNZ’s audience was unlikely to be misled. Accordingly, the accuracy standard was not breached. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley, discussing the statistic that 20% of New Zealanders admitted to ‘snooping’ on their partners’ devices, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. Following a story about a listener catching her partner cheating using his ‘find my iPhone’, the hosts made brief comments that ‘the gays should run a course’. The complainant considered the segment denigrated people who identify as gay and perpetuated a negative stereotype that gay people are sneaky. In the context, the Authority found the comments were unlikely to encourage different treatment of gay people to their detriment or devalue the reputation of gay people. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Solid Gold FM – comment by radio announcer that Ellen DeGeneres had been chosen as new American Idol judge making her “the second most powerful lesbian on the planet – the first of course being Chris Carter” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment was clearly intended to be a joke – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcast did not contain any material or language that strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment was a joke and would not have been interpreted as a statement of fact – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment was a joke…...

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint concerning a remark on 1 News about Pasifika people having a sense of comfort when dealing with clinicians and other staff who look like them. The complainant alleged this was racist. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it concerned an interpretation of the remark that no reasonable viewer would reach. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was a breach of broadcasting standards for an expert interviewee to suggest the anti-mask/anti-vaccination movement was behind bomb threats made to several New Zealand schools. The Authority found that while the issue of who was responsible constituted a controversial issue of public importance, the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, so the balance standard was not breached. It also found that anti-mask/anti-vaccination advocates are not groups to which the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...