Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-003:Ritchie and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-003 PDF364. 95 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported on Pike River Inquiry and new evidence that manager at the mine sent emails about a new job minutes after the explosion – reporter quoted a miner’s mother who had called out, “This is while my boy was dying! Jesus Christ!...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments during a documentary on New Zealand’s involvement in the World War I military campaign in Gallipoli breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, one of the presenters was shown a photograph of a woman behind bars, in the context of a conversation about prostitutes being available for troops stationed in Egypt. The presenter then made a derogatory comment about the appearance of the woman. The complainant submitted the comments made in the broadcast denigrated both women and sex workers. The Authority acknowledged that the comment regarding the woman’s appearance in particular, which also diminished the seriousness of some women’s experiences in World War I, was insensitive and unnecessary, and would be considered sexist and offensive to some viewers....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about the statement, ‘[Trump and] his fervent love of supporting Israel. The people, that by design, the genocidal maniacs. ’ The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s finding that the comment had the potential to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Israeli people. It found the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaint, apologise to the complainant, and counsel the host on the importance of exercising care when discussing political matters and ensuring sections of the community are treated with respect and dignity, was sufficient in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration (Action Taken)...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering animal welfare in rodeos. David Wratt complained that the item, which covered loss of animal life in rodeos, should focus on the deaths of babies as human life is more valuable than animal life. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency; Programme Information; Discrimination and Denigration; Balance; Fairness...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-054:Young and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-054 PDF399. 53 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-094:Clyne and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-094 PDF377. 3 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was inappropriate to broadcast images of spiders due to viewers potentially having arachnophobia. The Authority found the images were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence, and the introduction to the item gave viewers who did not want to see spiders the opportunity to switch off. The programme information and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Discrimination and Denigration....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996 - 029 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item on Turkey’s potential entry into the European Union – interview with London correspondent – comments allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – matters complained about were not the controversial issue of public importance under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not denigrate Turkish people – no other grounds of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tonight broadcast a three-part item on 4 October 2005 at 10. 30pm covering the possible entry of Turkey into the European Union (EU). The first part of the item was an introductory piece by the Tonight presenter which briefly outlined the outcome of a meeting in Luxembourg....

ComplaintRadio Sport – host Doug Golightly – men’s refuges derided as unnecessary for real New Zealanders – only use was for beaten partners of homosexual men – complainant’s email misread – unfair – irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 7 Guideline 7a – high threshold not reached – no uphold Principle 5 – change to email – implication that writer was homosexual – complainant not identified – on balance not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Radio Sport programme on Saturday morning 17 August 2002, hosted by Doug Golightly, included a number of references to men’s refuges. The host questioned their need for "real" New Zealanders, suggesting that only the beaten partners of homosexual men would use them. That attitude was reflected in his comments on some emails he referred to during the broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – news item reported on controversial comments made by Breakfast presenter, Paul Henry, about Chief Minister of Delhi and New Zealand’s Governor-General – comments about Chief Minister re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – legitimate news report – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on Morning Report, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 6. 38am on 8 October 2010, reported on controversial comments made by television presenter, Paul Henry, on Breakfast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – segment was an attempt at humour and satire – the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context, was not socially irresponsible, and did not reach high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-101:McElroy and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-101 PDF468. 14 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-046:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-046 PDF591. 9 KB...