Search Rapua

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an item on Morning Report discussing data showing Wellington to have the highest assault and sexual assault rates. Discussing the causes for this, the interviewer posed the question: ‘Do we have a problem with masculinity here? ’ and a discussion followed regarding the potential contribution of ‘toxic masculinity’ to Wellington’s crime rate. The Authority found the term did not carry the derogatory connotations suggested and the item did not contain the high level of condemnation or malice towards men required to contravene the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that The Hui breached the discrimination and denigration standard through its use of te reo Māori without subtitles, and by demonstrating ‘Māori-centric racism’ in its discussion of whether mātauranga Māori should be viewed as science. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on Newshub Live at 6pm breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The item reported on the appointment of Chris Hipkins and Carmel Sepuloni as the new Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and discussed the high levels of diversity in the top four positions in Cabinet. Later in the segment, the political editor stated ‘you can’t have two white guys from Wellington at the top in this day and age’, in reference to why she believed Grant Robertson had not been named Deputy Prime Minister. The Authority found the comments were a genuine expression of the political editor’s opinion, and 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...

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one caller expressed views opposing drilling including the fact drilling resources were sent to China who manufactured it into ‘crap’. Later in the programme, the host sarcastically referred back to the caller’s comments, referring to the ‘Damn Chinese’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were offensive and disrespected Chinese people. The host was being sarcastic, and was actually defending China, not being derogatory. In any case the comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Chinese people. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one topic of discussion was proposed offshore drilling in Taranaki....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] At the conclusion of an interview with a scientist on The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry asked her, ‘Did you have sex with Richard Branson? ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the question was inappropriate and discriminated against women. It was a provocative remark that was not unduly surprising given Mr Henry’s well-known style. It was also relevant that the scientist herself was apparently not offended and was aware she might be questioned about Mr Branson. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry interviewed a scientist, Dr Michelle Dickinson, about her research. At the end of the interview he asked about her recent experience staying with Richard Branson, a well-known businessman....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-041:Zohrab and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-041 PDF273. 25 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 35/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET CHAPMAN of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-047 Decision No: 1996-048 Decision No: 1996-049 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LEN MCKENNA of Kaitaia Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA talkback – interview with managing director of Moshims Discount House Ltd about allegations that expired food items were sent as aid to flood victims in Fiji – after interview, a listener phoned in alleging that Discount House sold food that had passed its expiry date – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcast not a factual programme or current affairs – comprised of opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond to claims – complainant and his company treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-147 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOYCE HEIJBOER CAMPBELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryIn an item on Morning Report broadcast on 12 August at 7. 28am, the presenter suggested to an investment advisor, when he was interviewed about the possible sale of the Wellington Airport, that potential buyers would "have to be blind" to think the sale was not a political minefield. Mr Mosen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that he, as a blind person, found the comment highly offensive, as it equated blindness with stupidity. He maintained that it was distressing and unhelpful to have ignorant and inaccurate perceptions about blindness reflected by a current affairs presenter. He sought an apology. RNZ defended the use of the phrase which it asserted was used in a colloquial sense and also a metaphorical sense, and maintained that the meaning of the figurative use was perfectly clear....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-146 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAEME ANDREWS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 69/95 Decision No: 70/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY of Auckland and PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Summary The fate of money belonging to Holocaust victims but deposited in Swiss bank accounts during World War II was the subject of commentary on "Aspects of Israel" broadcast on Access Radio on 29 June 1997 beginning at 11. 15am. The commentator questioned the honesty of the Swiss in dealing with the money. Mr Carson of Wellington complained to Access Radio, the broadcaster, that the remarks impugned the integrity of the Swiss and, therefore, were offensive and discriminatory. Access Radio responded that the comments related to Swiss banks and bankers, and did not refer to the Swiss as a people. Further, it considered that even if ill will was incited against those bankers who controlled the assets of Holocaust victims, it was unlikely that any of those people were in New Zealand....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-025 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by L. CARTER of Rotorua Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 142/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK ENGLERT of Waikanae Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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…...