Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-067–068:Newborn and Becker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-067–068 PDF (1. 07 MB)...

The Authority did not uphold two complaints that comments made by Mike Hosking during his Mike’s Minute segment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. Discussing two recent immigration policy decisions by the Government, Mr Hosking commented, ‘discrimination is no bad thing’ and, ‘Where do too many of the radicalised nutters come from? That particular part of the planet [Africa and the Middle East]. . . We don’t want to take the risk of a poor-ish person’s parent arriving – so why a jihadist? ’ The Authority acknowledged the complainants’ concerns that Mr Hosking’s choice of language was inflammatory. However, it found that in the context of the item, which carried public interest, the comments complained about were brief and moderated by the remainder of the item. Mr Hosking was expressing his genuinely held opinion on a legitimate issue, rather than being malicious or nasty....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Panel, a study was discussed which showed women are now outdoing men in some areas of cognition. The panellists joked about whether the study explained the reasons behind a ‘man’s look’ or why men do not replace toilet rolls. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that their comments denigrated men. They were clearly intended to be humorous and light-hearted, and did not carry any invective. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During The Panel, the male host and female panellists discussed a new study which showed women are catching up to men in some areas of cognition and outpacing them in others due to better health, education and living conditions....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment referring to a sex act during an episode of New Zealand Today, which the host and interviewee both laughed at. The programme was classified 16-LSC, preceded by a full-screen warning and screened at 9pm. Given audience expectations for the programme, the classification, the warning and the scheduling, the Authority found the comment would not cause widespread undue offence and audiences were able to make their own viewing choices. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on The Project discussing whether nurses who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 should return to the workforce given staff shortages. The complainant stated the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, as well as other standards, as it encouraged division in Aotearoa New Zealand and the presenters’ comments were ‘uncalled for and unfair’. The Authority found the comments reflected the presenters’ opinions and were unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or otherwise undermine widely shared community standards. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging an item on 1 News about nurses suffering ‘fatigue and burnout’ breached broadcasting standards. The complainant was concerned for an interviewee’s mental wellbeing and the broadcast’s omission of any interview with the interviewee’s employer or discussion of the employer’s accountability for the situation. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply, as no controversial issue was discussed; the issue of current nurse shortages is a fact. In any event, significant perspectives on the issue were broadcast within the (ongoing) period of current interest. The Authority also found the broadcast was materially accurate and unlikely to mislead viewers. The discrimination and denigration standard also did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the conviction and sentencing of a New Zealand woman, A, for the murder of her 20-year-old severely autistic and intellectually disabled daughter, B. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item ‘sympathised with the murderer over the victim’ and ‘morally absolved [A]’. The broadcast was a factual news item which reported on the outcome of criminal proceedings involving A, and largely reflected the Judge’s statements at sentencing. It was focused on the circumstances of A’s particular case and did not contain a discussion of the wider issues of violence against disabled people or family violence, and therefore did not require balancing perspectives on these issues....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about Mike Hosking’s statement on Mike Hosking Breakfast that the Duchess of Sussex was a ‘shallow, self-absorbed, attention-seeking, woke bandwagon-riding hussy’. The Authority found it was not likely to cause widespread, undue offence in the context. Although the discrimination and denigration standard applied, as the word ‘hussy’ may refer to and reflect upon women as a section of society, the comments did not meet the threshold justifying regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter was discussing American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship. At the end of the segment the presenter remarked, ‘Yeah, they don’t have very good humour the British, do they? They probably didn’t get [Mr Spieth’s] speech. ’ A complaint was made that this comment was ‘racist and untrue’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comment was not malicious and was unlikely to cause widespread offence, therefore any potential harm caused by the broadcast did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy  Introduction[1] During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter discussed American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship....

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

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority’s determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Talkback with Sean Plunket contained a discussion about the ‘chemtrails’ theory, in the context of comments made by Colin Craig that the Conservative Party was undecided about the validity of this theory. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host inaccurately claimed that chemtrails were not real, and denigrated people who believed in chemtrails by referring to them as ‘nutters’. The programme clearly comprised opinion rather than statements of fact, and people who believe in chemtrails are not a section of the community....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go Ad Awards – two teams of advertisers were asked to “sell us Quade Cooper for New Zealand’s next Prime Minister” during live advertising awards – included comments such as, “everyone hates Quade Cooper” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – piece was intended to be light-hearted and humorous, rather than malicious or abusive – presented in the spirit of good-natured ribbing and team rivalry – Mr Cooper not treated unfairly – 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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – included discussion on a study which showed a link between domestic violence and animal abuse – host made a number of comments that were critical of the women who took part in the study and of women who stayed in violent relationships because of their pets – for example, he said that they were “morons”, “probably deserved to be abused”, and were “born sub-normal” – host made comments that were critical of the White Ribbon campaign – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – talkback is a robust and opinionated environment – host’s approach could be considered offensive and provocative but was for effect and to generate a response – overall, programmes were balanced – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

The Authority declined to determine two complaints as they did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that warrant a determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...