Search Rapua

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 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-075:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-075 PDF484. 07 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-042 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 45/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN BATTYE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-095 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEE-ANN MEAD of Rotorua Broadcaster LAKE CITY 96 FM (Rotorua) S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a broadcast in which two co-hosts made fun of the third for giving his pet pig a name shared by ‘one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party’, and the three of them joked about distinguishing names associated with Hitler and the Nazis by spelling them differently. The Authority noted the comments may be considered distasteful, in that they trivialised the notoriety of Hitler and the Nazis, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the reading of an adaptation of the novel My Name Was Judas by author C. K. Stead was offensive to Christians in breach of the good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority did not consider that the broadcast’s content was likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding that it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The Authority also found that the balance standard did not apply as the programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, one of the characters, Harper, used the exclamation ‘Oh, Jesus…’ to express her shock and disgust at a flood of sewage in her new home. A promo for this episode, broadcast during the weather report on 1 News, also included Harper using this expression. The Authority received a complaint that this language was blasphemous and offensive, and in the case of the promo, inappropriate for broadcast during 1 News at 6pm when children might be watching. The Authority acknowledged that the complainant, and others in the community, might find this type of language offensive. However, the Authority has consistently found that these type of expressions are commonly used as exclamations in our society....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Good Morning the presenter interviewed two recently eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the presenters referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, as these words did not feature in the broadcast. Declined to Determine: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A presenter on Good Morning interviewed two eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand, while they cooked a dish. The programme was broadcast on TV ONE on 17 April 2014. [2] Shane Moore complained that the programme breached the discrimination and denigration standard because the presenter referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, and attacked ‘mentally disabled people’. [3] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment of Overnight Talk breached several standards. In the programme, a caller to the show queried the validity of the host’s statement that 1400 Israelis had died in the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, and asked what evidence the host had of the attack. The host’s response included suggesting the caller should not be ‘an idiot’, saying he was not going to waste his time, terminating the call and advising the caller that they could see ‘uncensored footage’ of the attack on the ‘deepest, darkest parts of the internet’ if they needed evidence....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a satirical segment would have been offensive to Christians. The segment was an imagined promo for reality show The Block, set in Jerusalem and featured contestants who shared the names of biblical figures, including Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Thomas and Judas. The promo was broadcast on Good Friday. The Authority did not consider the broadcast’s content would have unduly offended or distressed the general audience, and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The broadcast did not cause actual or potential harm at a level which justified limiting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...