Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that ACT leader David Seymour MP was bullied and treated unfairly on Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket. Mr Seymour called the show to present his perspective on comments made by Mr Plunket moments earlier about Mr Seymour’s motivation for sponsoring the End of Life Choice Bill. The Authority found that, while Mr Plunket’s interviewing style was robust and challenging, Mr Seymour was not treated unfairly given the nature of the programme, the fact that Mr Seymour initiated the conversation and expressed his views, and Mr Seymour’s position and his experience with the media. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not breach the balance standard as it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, which is required for the balance standard to apply....

The Authority has not upheld a good taste and decency complaint that the treatment of a clip showing a ‘devastating’ explosion in Lebanon was inappropriate in a segment rounding up ‘all the crazy, messed-up oddities’ of the week. The context and the importance of freedom of expression meant there was no harm justifying regulatory intervention in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency; Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 6/95 Dated the 13th day of February 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 I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 95/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN E WEBB of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-110 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W M MOORE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Danny Watson – discussion about the Catholic Church’s excommunication of the mother and doctor of a nine-year-old girl in Brazil who had been raped, become pregnant, and had an abortion – the view of one of the people who rang in support of the Church’s actions was later criticised by other callers – a number of callers rang in criticising the Church’s actions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and Catholic Church treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – criticisms of the Catholic Church lacked necessary invective for a breach of the standard – robust nature of talkback – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

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....

ComplaintAlly McBeal – drama – male applicants for law practice required to take off shirts – discrimination against men – sexual harassment in the workplace – inconsistent with maintenance of law and order Findings(1) Standard G13 – no discrimination or denigration – legitimate dramatic work – no uphold (2) Section 4(1)(b) – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Ally McBeal was broadcast on TV2 on 5 July 2000 at 8. 30pm. A sequence in the programme featured two women interviewing male applicants for a position in a legal practice. The applicants were asked to remove their shirts during the interview process. S Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence represented "illegal" sexual harassment of the men involved, and encouraged discrimination against men....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host described Minister of Health as a chicken and derelict in her duty – offensive and denigrating FindingsPrinciple 1a – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7a – comments acceptable on talkback – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Minister of Health was criticised for not going to Christchurch to try to settle a threatened nurses strike there. The comments were made by the host (Bill Ralston) on the talkback station, Radio Pacific, between 11. 00am–2. 00pm on 30 November 2001. [2] David Stott complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments, which included a description of the Minister as a "woof" and "chicken", were insulting, denigrating and in poor taste. [3] As Mr Stott did not receive a response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about an item on Mike Hosking Breakfast. The complainant was concerned about a discussion of unvaccinated health workers, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainant’s personal views and in all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

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) –…...

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 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?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle. On the basis it was frivolous and trivial, the Authority declined to determine the complaint that the item’s use of the word ‘biker’ gave the impression the motorcyclist was a ‘reckless’ gang member and had caused the accident. ‘Biker’ was a colloquial term referring to the driver of a motorbike, and in any case the words ‘biker’ and ‘motorcylist’ were used interchangeably. Decline to Determine: Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A One News item which reported on an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle used the term ‘biker’ to refer to the motorcyclist. The item was broadcast on 15 October 2013 on TV ONE....

The Authority has not upheld complaints about a press conference by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and comments by Professor Michael Baker regarding restrictions for persons who do not have a COVID-19 vaccination. It found the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to either broadcast and the balance and law and order complaints were not upheld in respect of the second complaint. The interview with Professor Baker was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from his perspective and there has been widespread discussion in other media about whether restrictions on people that are unvaccinated are justified. The Authority found listeners were in a position to arrive at informed and reasoned opinions regarding this issue. It also found the broadcast did not encourage any illegal or antisocial activity. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-043 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY DEPUTY MAYOR of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...