Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Hauraki – hosts on breakfast show referred to Helen Clark donating a testicle – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and social responsibility. Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item light-hearted and satirical in nature – broadcaster was mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 8. 30am on 11 May 2007, Radio Hauraki broadcast a segment in its breakfast show hosted by the "Morning Pirates", Willy De Wit, Mark Perry and Dean Butler. One of the hosts described a story about a woman in the UK who had recently donated her kidney to her employer, who was in need of a transplant....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-004:O'Dea and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-004 PDF279. 1 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Three episodes of a British dating game show, Naked Attraction, were broadcast on TVNZ 2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 10, 17 and 24 November 2017. During each episode, a clothed individual selected a date from six naked individuals, who were gradually revealed in stages from the feet up, with no blurring or pixelation of nudity. Six complainants referred their complaints about these episodes of Naked Attraction to the Authority, complaining that the programme contained a high level of full frontal nudity and sexual discussion, which was offensive and contrary to standards of good taste and decency. The complainants also submitted that the programme denigrated, or was discriminatory towards, both participants and viewers, and was broadcast at a time on a weekend night when children were likely to be watching....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two episodes of Story featured items about self-described ‘professional political campaigner’ Simon Lusk. In the first item, presenter Duncan Garner was shown hunting with Mr Lusk, and Mr Lusk apparently shot two deer. Excerpts of political figures being interviewed about their involvement with Mr Lusk, and of Mr Lusk discussing such involvement, were shown throughout the items. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the items were in breach of multiple broadcasting standards for the way Mr Lusk’s involvement in politics was reported and for featuring footage of deer hunting. The footage of the deer hunting was not so graphic or gratuitous that it would have offended a significant number of viewers, including child viewers....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-001:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-001 PDF (374. 35 KB)...

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…...

Complaint Classic Hits 89. 4FM Nelson - content of Nelson’s Mainland Television described as “crap” – offensive and unacceptable Findings Principle 7 – not applicable Principle 1 – not offensive in context – not upheld Principle 5 – humorous editorial comment was not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A news report that a city (Oslo) was offering trips through the sewer system as a tourist attraction was read on Classic Hits 89. 4FM in Nelson at about 7. 25am on Thursday 11 December 2003. The announcer added that, in Nelson, Mainland TV offered “four channels of crap all the time”. [2] On behalf of Mainland Television Ltd, the Managing Director (Gary Watson) complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unacceptable....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sports Tonight – presenter referred to the English netball team as “Poms” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term was affectionate slang rather than abusive – did not carry level of invective necessary to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Sports Tonight, broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 21 October 2009, the presenter referred to the New Zealand netball team beating “the Poms in overtime in a one-off test last week”. Complaint [2] Gary Jordan made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the term “pom” was a racial slur against English people and should not be broadcast. He considered the term to be derogatory and offensive....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-115 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY (Auckland) Broadcaster MAX TV LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News concerning increased racism experienced by public figures in relation to co-governance issues breached the balance, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards. The complainant alleged the association of opponents of co-governance with racist abuse was an attempt to paint all opponents as racist and stop debate. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate and the expert featured could reasonably be relied upon, and the balance standard was not applicable. While the complainant was concerned the broadcasts denigrated opponents of co-governance, this group is not a recognised section of society for the purposes of the standard. Not upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine six complaints about various TVNZ broadcasts, under several standards, as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, issues raised had recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination and/or the standards raised did not relate to the relevant complaint. Two complaints were also trivial. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial; and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

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 declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding comments made by Louise Wallace about overweight people, during a panel discussion on AM. The complaint was that the comments were in extremely bad taste and denigrating and discriminatory towards ‘fat women’ in particular. The Authority accepted the comments clearly had the potential to offend. However, noting in particular that the programme hosts challenged Wallace’s comments and made countering remarks, the Authority concluded that the comments did not meet the high threshold for finding the broadcast caused harm at a level that justified regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency...

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 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...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Hon Tariana Turia called a “confused bag of lard” by host – also accused of being a bully and “all mouth” – allegedly offensive, encouraged denigration, unbalanced and partialFindings Principle 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – comments not indecent – questionable taste – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – not applicable to editorial comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – editorial comment not required to be impartial – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments focused on individual, not group – not upheldObservation Broadcast comments raised issue of fairness, and broadcaster acknowledged probable unfairness. However, neither complainant raised the fairness standard either explicitly or implicitly in original complaints. Authority unable to assess a complaint on standard not raised in original complaints....