Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about recent release of controversial Barbie doll – panellist suggested there was a market in the Muslim world for “terrorist Barbie”, and in response the host suggested “suicide bomber Barbie” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists were offering commentary and opinion in a satirical manner, making the point that the marketers of Barbie dolls were smart to release controversial Barbies – comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Muslims as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were light-hearted and intended to be satirical/a joke – most viewers would not have been offended or distressed by the comments taking into account the context – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – comment about recent pack rape allegations against Australian rugby league players – host described women who attended parties with rugby league players as “moles” and suggested that they were asking for trouble – allegedly denigrated womenFindings Standard 7 – Guideline 7a (discrimination and denigration) – comment encouraged denigration of women who socialise with rugby league players – not a genuine expression of serious comment – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 7. 55am on 2 April 2004 the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB (Paul Holmes) commented on recent pack rape allegations against a team of Australian rugby league players....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live – host likened the appearance of a talent show contestant to that of a person suffering from an intellectual disability – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – host’s comments intended to be positive – item lacked necessary invective to amount to encouraging denigration – not upheld Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – host had no intention to insult or offend – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Radio Live on 27 August 2007 discussed a British talent show contestant named Paul Potts and his rapid rise to fame after his singing audition on the programme “Britain’s Got Talent”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Toast Breakfast Show – host commented on Telecom’s outsourcing of call centre work overseas – made reference to “stupid Filipino operators” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 7 (denigration and discrimination) – host’s remark lacked the necessary invective to reach threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host’s comment was an expression of frustration with Telecom and a throw-away line – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Toast Breakfast Show, broadcast on UPFM on the morning of 14 December 2009, one of the hosts commented on Telecom’s outsourcing of call centre work for its 018 directory service....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair, unbalanced and in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 9g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – time of broadcast – standard does not apply – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Popetown, called “Derby Day” screened on C4 at 9. 30pm, on 10 August 2005....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live – (1) talkback host on 11 October criticised New Zealand Aids Foundation for what he regarded as its promotion of the gay lifestyle – allegedly denigratory, unbalanced and unfair(2) talkback host on 12 October expressed dislike for most gay men – allegedly denigratory, unbalanced and unfairFindings (both 11 and 12 October broadcasts) Principle 4 (balance) – exchanges did not amount to discussions about a controversial of public importance – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – no obligation to give the NZAF a right of reply taking into account brevity of throw-away comments made by talkback host – not upheldPrinciple 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – threshold not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – item on New Zealand fruit exports to Australia – interviewee said “Who is the World Trade Organisation? They are all Pakeha” – allegedly denigratory of PakehaFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6g (denigration) – comment more expression of frustration at lack of Māori input to finding a solution – not intended to be denigratory of Pakeha – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast Te Karere on 24 June at 6am. Te Karere contained an item about the continuing opposition from Australia to New Zealand apple imports. The item included an interview with Mr Maanu Paul, a kiwifruit grower from Whakatane....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion of South Africa & New Zealand one day cricket match – callers’ questions about match-fixing and bonus point – host terminated one call apparently from an Asian with reference to match-fixing in the sub-continent – another call terminated with sarcasm – unfair – racist FindingsPrinciple 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7 – opinion not racial slur – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The result of the previous evening’s one day cricket match between New Zealand and South Africa was one of the topics on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 2 February 2002 hosted by Doug Golightly. One caller questioned whether the result was fixed, and another asked whether South Africa had earned a bonus point....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-016 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HUGH BARR of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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 1989Solid Gold FM – comment by radio announcer that Ellen DeGeneres had been chosen as new American Idol judge making her “the second most powerful lesbian on the planet – the first of course being Chris Carter” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment was clearly intended to be a joke – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcast did not contain any material or language that strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment was a joke and would not have been interpreted as a statement of fact – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment was a joke…...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on the verdict of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in the United States breached broadcasting standards. The complainant considered the item inaccurate and unbalanced as it allegedly misrepresented events around the trial including the origins of the protest, the presiding Judge, and the public’s response to the verdict. The Authority considered the broadcast was materially accurate given its focus on the verdict from the trial. Any inaccuracies were unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item. The balance and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply, and the fairness standard was not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

SummaryWWF Raw and WWF Summerslam were broadcast consecutively on TV4 on 11 September 1999, from 8. 30pm to12. 00am. These programmes featured professional wrestling bouts which had been staged in front of live audiences. Mr Bridgman, Ms Crombie, Mr Little and Mr Bonner complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that aspects of the behaviour shown in the programmes breached programme standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination against women, and the effect of programmes on children and violence. TV3 explained that the "fights" in the programmes were choreographed, not real. It described the WWF shows as "neither sport nor drama but a kind of pageant" which it compared to a magic show. TV3 rejected every aspect of the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, the complainants referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Following an interview with Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, Mike Hosking, on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show, replayed the interview and commented on the length of a pause during the interview. In doing so, Hosking questioned whether it was a ‘pause or a gabble’ and included sound effects of trucks passing and a turkey gobbling to ‘measure’ the pause. The complainants allege this second segment breached five standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it belittled the Associate Health Minister. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards and was not unfair to the Associate Health Minister. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two items covering the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – first item contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court describing his attack – second item included the prosecutor saying the word “fucking” three times – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards Findings13 July item Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of attack given by Mr Weatherston were explicit – item should have been preceded by a warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning – broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item contained explicit details of violence – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld Standard 6 (fairness)…...

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....

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....