Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a news report on 1News breached several standards, by using the phrase Hamas ‘fighters’, rather than Hamas ‘terrorists’. The Authority found the choice of word could not reasonably be said to encourage the different treatment of Jewish or Israeli people, devalue their reputation, or embed negative stereotypes about them. Under accuracy, the Authority found the word was not inaccurate, was not material in the context of the broadcast as a whole, and there was no harm at a level justifying limitation of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and editorial independence. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance and Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four items on Newshub featured stories related to the United Kingdom and/or the British Royal Family. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the Newshub items and the reporters’ comments were biased, unfair and derogatory towards the United Kingdom and/or members of the British Royal Family. The Authority found that the news reports did not contain any material which discriminated against or denigrated any section of the community, or which could be said to be unfair to members of the British Royal Family. The items also did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which triggered the requirement for balancing perspectives to be given, and did not raise accuracy or programme information issues....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Advertising Standards Complaints Board upheld a complaint about a Levi jeans advertisement – host critical of what he regarded as religious bigotry – socially irresponsible – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 6 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 7 – satire – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Paul Holmes, as the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, was highly critical of religious bigotry which, he contended, was the motivation for some people to complain about a television advertisement for Levi jeans. He expressed the view, by way of comment, in a broadcast shortly before 8. 00am on 27 August 2003. [2] Ross Craig complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments lacked balance, fairness and accuracy....

ComplaintPaul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB – derogatory comment about Catholic Church and the Pope FindingsPrinciple 7 and Guideline 7a – intemperate and populist contribution to global debate – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Referring to some recent publicity about priests who were paedophiles, the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB made some highly critical comments about the Catholic Church and the Pope, including describing the Church as rotten to its core. The comments were broadcast at about 8. 20am on 1 July 2002. [2] Kathleen and Patrick McCartain, and Irene Angus, complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster, that while they accepted critical opinion, they did not accept comments in which their faith and beliefs were "ridiculed so blatantly"....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During 3 News: Firstline, TV3’s political correspondent commented that Colin Craig was the ‘toilet paper’ of conservative politics and ‘he’s got the Christians [voting for him]’. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that these comments were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. The segment clearly comprised the correspondent’s own analysis and commentary rather than statements of fact, so viewers would not have been misled and the broadcaster was not required to present other views. As the leader of a political party, Mr Craig should expect criticism and scrutiny, so the comments were not unfair. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During 3 News: Firstline, TV3’s political correspondent commented that Colin Craig was the ‘toilet paper’ of conservative politics, and that ‘he’s got the Christians [voting for him]’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints about Heather du Plessis-Allan’s use of the term ‘leeches’ to describe the Pacific Islands during Wellington Mornings with Heather du Plessis-Allan were upheld, under both the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority recognised the important role talkback radio plays in fostering open discourse and debate in society. However, the Authority found Ms du Plessis-Allan’s comments went beyond what is acceptable in a talkback environment, considering the use of language that was inflammatory, devalued the reputation of Pasifika people within New Zealand and had the potential to cause widespread offence and distress....

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...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast discussing racial tensions arising from coalition government policies. The item mentioned a 1News Verian poll on whether the coalition government’s policies were increasing, decreasing, or making no real difference to racial tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complainant alleged the broadcast, and the poll were ‘incredibly biased’ and that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it raised issues under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards that could all be dismissed on grounds previously explained to the complainant; the broadcast could not be considered to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the complaint concerned issues of personal preference and had been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

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....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-134 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT SMITH of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary The fate of money belonging to Holocaust victims but deposited in Swiss bank accounts during World War II was the subject of commentary on "Aspects of Israel" broadcast on Access Radio on 29 June 1997 beginning at 11. 15am. The commentator questioned the honesty of the Swiss in dealing with the money. Mr Carson of Wellington complained to Access Radio, the broadcaster, that the remarks impugned the integrity of the Swiss and, therefore, were offensive and discriminatory. Access Radio responded that the comments related to Swiss banks and bankers, and did not refer to the Swiss as a people. Further, it considered that even if ill will was incited against those bankers who controlled the assets of Holocaust victims, it was unlikely that any of those people were in New Zealand....

THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 160/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALICIA LEE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Classic Hits – host told a joke about two people in a “mental hospital” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard only applies to people taking part or referred to in a programme – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item was clearly signalled as a joke – legitimate use of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Classic Hits Breakfast at 7. 45am on 13 June 2007, included a segment called “the 7. 45 funny” in which the following joke was broadcast: Jim and Edna were both patients at a mental hospital....