Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an item on The Project. A presenter commented ‘I think happily we don’t have many Americans in New Zealand so we probably won’t end up in that situation’, in response to a question from another presenter, about whether New Zealanders would start demanding a right to bear arms as in the United States, in light of a recent knife attack. The complainants alleged these comments were discriminatory against Americans, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to breach the standard and justify restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Te Ao Māori News report on a   protest against Te Uru Taumatua (the Tūhoe governing authority). It found the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply as the broadcast was about individuals or an organisation rather than a recognised section of society as contemplated by the standard. It also found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the programme, the alleged inaccuracies were either not inaccurate or not materially misleading and Te Uru Taumatua and Terehia Biddle were treated fairly in the broadcast. Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that featuring Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam as an interviewee on Breakfast breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The complainant considered the choice of interviewee was harmful to people affected by Tam and gang-related crime. The Authority found the interview did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard, noting it was not a breach of broadcasting standards to include Tam purely on the basis of his background as a gang member. It further found no breach of the balance standard as the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives on the issue being discussed during the interview. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a discussion between the hosts of AM and an interview with Prime Minister Chris Hipkins breached multiple standards for including statements from the hosts questioning the usefulness and purpose of Government inquiries into various sectors. The Authority found the balance and fairness standards were not breached as the interview with Hipkins provided an alternative viewpoint, and allowed Hipkins to comment on the Government’s reasoning for the inquiry. The accuracy standard did not apply, as the comments were analysis, commentary and opinion, and the discrimination and denigration, and offensive and disturbing content standards either were not breached or did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item did not sufficiently include balancing comment. The item presented a number of comments in support of the beneficiaries, and it was clear the interviewees were offering their own opinion, which is not subject to standards of accuracy. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The item featured Social Development Minister Paula Bennett explaining the rationale for restricting beneficiaries’ overseas travel and expressing disappointment with the latest statistics. The item also included comment from Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei and Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesman Alastair Russell....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-171 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – The Justin du Fresne Show – joke arising from controversy over Prime Minister’s allegedly speeding motorcade. FindingsPrinciple 1 (Good taste and decency) – obvious attempt at humour – no bad language used – not personal attack on Prime Minister – not upheld Principle 7 (Social responsibility) – obvious attempt at humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On The Justin du Fresne Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 19 July 2004, presenter Justin du Fresne told a joke arising from the earlier controversy over the Prime Minister’s allegedly speeding motorcade....

ComplaintOne News – CCS referred to as Crippled Children’s Society – obsolete – discriminatory – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – denigration or discrimination not encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The return to Wellington of night-club entertainer, Carmen, was dealt with during an item on One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 25 October 2002. The reporter pointed to one building bearing the CCS logo which, he said, had been a brothel and was now used by the Crippled Children’s Society. [2] Russell Vickery, a National Board Representative with NZCCS, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the organisation was the New Zealand CCS Incorporated, it was incorrect and unfair to describe it as the Crippled Children’s Society....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Border Patrol – undeclared meat package from France intercepted at Auckland International Mail Centre – MAF official commented that people eat horse in France and discussed the dangers associated with raw meat in terms of its potential to carry diseases – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment about diseases not directed at French people – did not encourage discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the reality TV series Border Patrol was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 26 July 2010. Border Patrol was a locally produced television programme that followed the daily activities of New Zealand’s border security staff, including Customs officials at airports and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) officials at international mail centres....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – discussed government’s Te Reo Māori initiatives – host read out email from listener who said that their grandmother had been beaten at school for speaking Te Reo – host stated, “I think this is a myth, to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t know of anywhere this happened....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3 News reporting on a shift in social networking choices by young people in the United Kingdom referred to ‘England’ in its introduction. The broadcaster upheld the complaint that this was inaccurate and apologised to the complainant. The Authority considered the broadcaster took sufficient action and that the broadcast did not breach the other standards nominated. Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] An item on 3 News reporting on a shift in social networking choices by young people in the United Kingdom, referred to ‘England’ in its introduction. The item was broadcast on 29 December 2013 on TV3....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that The Hui breached the discrimination and denigration standard through its use of te reo Māori without subtitles, and by demonstrating ‘Māori-centric racism’ in its discussion of whether mātauranga Māori should be viewed as science. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News concerning increased racism experienced by public figures in relation to co-governance issues breached the balance, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards. The complainant alleged the association of opponents of co-governance with racist abuse was an attempt to paint all opponents as racist and stop debate. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate and the expert featured could reasonably be relied upon, and the balance standard was not applicable. While the complainant was concerned the broadcasts denigrated opponents of co-governance, this group is not a recognised section of society for the purposes of the standard. Not upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding MPs being infected with COVID-19 and mask-wearing breached multiple broadcasting standards. The Authority found the host’s comment that she would rather get COVID-19 than wear a mask all day was unlikely to seriously violate community standards of taste and decency. The comment did not relate to a recognised section of the community as contemplated by the discrimination and denigration standard or reach a threshold necessary to constitute discrimination or denigration. Nor did the broadcast ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance as required for the balance standard to apply, and the comment at issue was an opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and which was unlikely to mislead the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the question ‘How can anyone trust anything that you say? ’ put to Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health, following the positive tests of two women who were released from managed isolation on compassionate grounds. Dr Bloomfield’s answers to the question (which was posed twice) were shown on-air. Viewers would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him. As a public health official he is reasonably subject to robust scrutiny, especially during a pandemic. The fairness standard was accordingly not breached and the remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging sports commentary of the ICC World Test Championship final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The comments ‘it's a story that's akin to David versus Goliath…and living proof that sometimes, just sometimes, nice guys do finish first’ did not refer to a particular section of the community as contemplated by the standard. In any event, it was typical of sports commentary and did not have a prejudicial meaning. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...