Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld four complaints about a segment on The AM Show, which featured host Duncan Garner criticising parents who do not vaccinate their children, using terms such as ‘murderers’ and ‘bloody idiots’, and stating they should be ‘stripped of their right to spread their message and their viruses’. The Authority found that, taking into account audience expectations of Mr Garner and The AM Show, alongside other contextual factors, Mr Garner’s comments did not breach broadcasting standards. With regard to the balance standard, the Authority found that, while the anti-vaccination movement was a controversial issue of public importance, Mr Garner’s comments did not amount to a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard, but reflected his own personal views on the issue....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-047 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN LUCY of Havelock North Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host interviewed Professor of Māori history about 21 hui selecting a ‘Māori’ flag to be flown on Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day – both host and interviewee commented that the process was a waste of time and money – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance – One News item the previous evening presented alternative viewpoints which provided balance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments reinforced negative stereotypes but did not reach threshold necessary for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments about Tino Rangatiratanga flag being one of division were clearly the host’s opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness to Māori dealt…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LESLIE GEE of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 113/94 Decision No: 114/94 Dated the 17th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR J P DOWNS of Dunedin and TRISH O'DONNELL of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment on the Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley morning show breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, the hosts made several jokes and innuendos about the name of Irish airline Aer Lingus and one host, putting on an Irish accent, stated ‘on the menu today, we have potatoes’. The complainant considered the jokes to be offensive to Irish people and culture, and to amount to racism. The Authority acknowledged the jokes had the potential to offend, but did not uphold the complaint, finding the jokes did not meet the threshold for a breach under the discrimination and denigration standard as they were unlikely to encourage the different treatment of Irish people to their detriment, devalue the reputation of Irish people, or embed negative stereotypes. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A presenter on Radio New Zealand Concert introduced a piece of music, saying the composer was ‘considered to be a degenerate in Germany because of his Jewish origins’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the announcer’s comment was in bad taste and denigrated Jewish people. The comment was simply a factual statement giving context to the composer’s work, and was a reference to how he was viewed by the Nazis, not an expression of the presenter’s personal opinion. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] On the morning of 6 September 2013, the presenter of Radio New Zealand Concert introduced a piece of music, as follows: …and now we’ve a fantasy by a composer considered to be a degenerate in Germany because of his Jewish origins....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live Drive – host referred to “dirty Germans” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted – was not intended to reflect all Germans – host was expressing disapproval of tourists stealing native wildlife – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment related specifically to the German tourists who had stolen native geckos – did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against German people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Radio Live Drive, broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 4. 20pm on 9 March 2011, the host said: Have you ever thought about stealing a gecko? Why on earth would you steal a gecko?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Larry Williams Drive Show – host interviewed director of the Middle East Forum about his concerns with the growing Muslim population in Europe – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on interviewee’s views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments conveyed interviewee’s personal opinion – no discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – interview would not have alarmed or…...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints regarding an episode of Shortland Street were not upheld. In the episode a new character appointed CEO of the Shortland Street hospital commented, ‘Puffed up, privileged Pakeha men drunk on control, terrified of change… we are the future, Esther, not them,’ referring to the hospital’s management. Complaints were made that this statement was sexist, racist and offensive to white men. The Authority reviewed the programme and relevant contextual factors, including established expectations of Shortland Street as a long-running, fictional soap opera/drama, and concluded the character’s statement did not breach broadcasting standards. It found upholding the complaints in this context would unreasonably limit the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness The broadcast[1] A Shortland Street episode featured a new CEO, Te Rongopai, starting at Shortland Street hospital....

The Authority has not upheld complaints that the action taken by Warner Bros. Discovery in response to a breach of the accuracy and fairness standards – during a Newshub Live at 6pm item on Immigration New Zealand’s decision to allow Posie Parker’s entry to New Zealand – was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaints relating to a clip of Parker, which the reporter stated had been blurred because Parker was ‘using a hand signal linked to white supremacists’. The broadcaster conceded that blurring Parker’s hands was potentially misleading as it prevented audiences from making their own assessment of the footage, and potentially unfair as Parker’s intention was unclear. The broadcaster removed the video in the online version of the story and replaced it with a clip of Parker’s position on neo-Nazis, which the Authority found was sufficient and proportionate action in the circumstances....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, one of the characters, Harper, used the exclamation ‘Oh, Jesus…’ to express her shock and disgust at a flood of sewage in her new home. A promo for this episode, broadcast during the weather report on 1 News, also included Harper using this expression. The Authority received a complaint that this language was blasphemous and offensive, and in the case of the promo, inappropriate for broadcast during 1 News at 6pm when children might be watching. The Authority acknowledged that the complainant, and others in the community, might find this type of language offensive. However, the Authority has consistently found that these type of expressions are commonly used as exclamations in our society....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an item on The Project. A presenter commented ‘I think happily we don’t have many Americans in New Zealand so we probably won’t end up in that situation’, in response to a question from another presenter, about whether New Zealanders would start demanding a right to bear arms as in the United States, in light of a recent knife attack. The complainants alleged these comments were discriminatory against 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...