Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-170 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUGLAS JENKIN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-034 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK EDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary A representative of a beneficiaries’ organisation was interviewed on National Radio’s Nine to Noon on 21 July 1999 beginning at 9. 06am. The interview arose in the context of controversy surrounding the operation of Work and Income New Zealand. Mr Boyce complained to RNZ, the broadcaster, that the beneficiary representative was not treated fairly because he was not named in the introduction to the item. He contended that the interviewee was discriminated against because of his status as a beneficiary. RNZ provided a brief response in which it asserted that the interviewee had been dealt with fairly, and that it had acted in a socially responsible manner. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s response, Mr Boyce referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-131:Ellmers and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-131 PDF282. 26 KB...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on an Italian television personality who groped David Beckham’s genitals – news presenters commented on the incident – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – while the comments were sexist, they were intended to be humorous and lacked the necessary invective for a breach of the standard – item did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Friday 22 January 2010, reported that David Beckham had his genitals groped by an Italian television personality during a media interview....

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....

SummaryAn episode of a popular sitcom, in which a character was portrayed using his former girlfriend’s name when taking his marriage vows, was discussed on The Edge at 7. 30am on 20 August 1998. Listeners were invited to discuss what they would do in a similar situation. One male caller said "I’d give her a slap around", to which the host DJ responded "That’s a bit rough mate, isn’t it? "Ms Beston complained to the RadioWorks Waikato, the broadcaster, that the exchange was offensive, and contended that the DJ’s casual response had tacitly condoned violence against women. In her view, the call should have been terminated before the comments were broadcast. She sought an apology from the station. In response, The RadioWorks advised that it considered the host’s response was a natural one which had not in any way endorsed the statement made by the caller....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-072 Dated the 9th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY of Auckland Broadcaster ACCESS COMMUNITY RADIO AUCKLAND INC S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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 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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 101/95 Dated the 12th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN STRINGER of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Travel Guides Australia breached the discrimination and denigration standard by featuring one of the show’s participants stating he grew hair quickly due to his ‘wog genetics’. The Authority noted the word ‘wog’ can have different meanings; typically referring to non-white people in British English and to people with Southern European ancestry in Australian English, and that these constituted recognised sections of the community for the purposes of the standard. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the word, in this particular context (being used by someone of Greek heritage to describe themselves), it did not reach the high threshold of condemnation necessary to find a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

ComplaintMotorway Patrol and promo – incident involving the complainants’ vehicle – complainants identifiable – breach of privacy – unfair – encouraged discrimination FindingsStandards 3 – privacy – no uphold Standard 6, Guideline 6b – not unfair to inadvertent participants who do not consent as events of public interest occurred in public place – no uphold, Guideline 6f – humiliation self-inflicted – no uphold, Guideline 6g – neither discrimination or denigration encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The loss of a trampoline off the roof of a vehicle as it drove across the Auckland Harbour Bridge was the incident dealt with in a promo for, and in the first segment of, Motorway Patrol broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 11 April 2002. Motorway Patrol is a reality series which records the work of police patrols on the Auckland motorways....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed brief visual overview of New Zealand flags – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – complaint frivolous and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Items broadcast on Campbell Live on TV3 at 7pm on 22 and 23 September 2011, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag, which had been a topic of discussion during the Rugby World Cup....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-133 Dated the 10th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALEXIS KEIR of New Plymouth Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-001 Dated the 23rd day January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item briefly described a ruling of the International Court of Justice in relation to Israel’s actions in Rafah, and an academic’s perspective on the potential reaction of the international community. The complainant argued other perspectives and information should have been included, the description of the ruling was inaccurate, and the various statements, omissions and inaccuracies contributed to breaches of multiple standards. The Authority found the brief item did not constitute a ‘discussion’, so the balance standard did not apply. With regard to accuracy, the Authority found the description of the ruling was reasonable and the broadcaster had exercised reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It also found the academic’s reference to ‘attacking’ by Israel constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and was materially accurate....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Gagaifo O Faiva that reported a Supreme Court of Samoa decision which convicted 11 men in relation to a 2023 kidnapping incident in Lefagaoali’i village, Samoa. The complaint alleged the broadcast discriminated against, denigrated, and was unfair to the 11 men sentenced. The Authority acknowledged the broadcast contributed to the distress felt by the complainant and the men’s families. However, having regard to factors including audience and cultural expectations of the presenter, the high public profile of the kidnapping, and public interest in the broadcast subject matter, the Authority found criticism of the 11 convicted was not unfair and any harm caused was not at a level to justify the Authority’s intervention. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply, since the relevant comments were aimed at individuals as opposed to a protected section of the community....