Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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)…...

ComplaintOne News – Australian Governor-General – alleged cover-up of sexual abuse – Merepeka Raukawa-Tait interviewed – suggested Australians were hypocritical as their silence may have contributed to abuse – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – item balanced about matter of Governor-General’s tenure – no uphold Standard 5 – item accurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no evidence of denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Controversy over the allegations that the Australian Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, had covered up sex abuse cases when Archbishop of Brisbane was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 22 February 2002. The Chief Executive of Women’s Refuge in New Zealand, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, when interviewed, suggested that the criticism directed at Dr Hollingworth was hypocritical....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Waitangi: What Really Happened – docu-drama about events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Waitangi: What Really Happened was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 6 February 2011. The programme was a docu-drama following the events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline – item reported that Jeremy Clarkson had apologised for his comments that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of law and order, discrimination and denigration, and violence standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item was a straightforward news report about Mr Clarkson’s comments – broadcasting the comments did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – re-broadcasting Mr Clarkson’s comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Introduction [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Seven Sharp in which Hilary Barry made comments about the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and about ‘anti-vaxxers’, including suggesting those who do not want to be vaccinated could ‘jump on a ferry and go to the Auckland Islands for a few years, and then when we’ve got rid of COVID-19…come back’. The complaint alleged these comments breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards, by suggesting the safety of the vaccine was almost without question, and denigrating those with a different view. The Authority found Ms Barry’s comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. It found the broadcast did not address a controversial issue so the balance standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a promo leading to a news report on Newshub Live at 6pm breached the discrimination and denigration standard in its use of the word ‘Aboriginals’ when describing Aboriginal peoples / First Nations peoples in Alice Springs, and for discussing concerns of rising crime in Alice Springs. While acknowledging the description ‘Aboriginals’ rather than ‘Aboriginal people(s)’, is no longer considered appropriate terminology in Australia, the host’s statement was made without malice or nastiness as part of a straightforward news report on rising criminal activity. The broadcaster also advised the complainant’s concern regarding correct terminology has been passed on to the Newshub team. The Authority did not consider regulatory intervention justified in these circumstances. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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 an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-120 Dated the 19th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J D�ERRICO of Wellington Broadcaster CAPITAL CITY TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-002 Dated the 29th day of January 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WING-YAU YEE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO i98FM LIMITED S Maling Chairperson L Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that comments made by Kate Hawkesby on Early Edition with Kate Hawkesby, about the newly introduced Equity Adjustor Score in the Auckland region, were misleading. The Equity Adjustor Score is a system which uses five categories to place patients on the non-urgent surgical waitlist, including clinical priority, time spent waiting, location, deprivation level and ethnicity. Hawkesby made statements to the effect that the Score meant Māori and Pacific Peoples were being ‘moved to the top of surgery waitlists’. The Authority found the comments to be materially misleading in relation to the nature and impact of the Score, as they gave the impression that ethnicity was the only, or the key factor, involved in the assessment, and that Māori and Pacific patients would be given immediate precedence on the surgical waitlist as a result, when this was not the case....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in? ’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – comment included a statement that the Green Party was the party of square dancers – complainant objected to square dancers being associated with the Green Party – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated square dancersFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant to complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – square dancers not a “section of the community” to which the guideline applies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 6 June 2006 at approximately 7....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on saving fuel costs – contained a number statements about hybrid cars, including the following comment which referred to the Toyota Prius, “The bottom line is that the British Consumer’s Institute just did a comparison between a diesel car and a hybrid car and found that the diesel car was in fact more efficient....

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....