Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The AM Show, host Duncan Garner and then Newshub political editor Patrick Gower discussed various policies the new Labour Government was considering implementing, as well as legislation it planned to change or repeal. Discussing the ‘three strikes’ law, Mr Gower referred to one of the complainants, Mr Garrett, who was involved in introducing the law, and stated, ‘turned out that he had been stealing dead babies’ identities himself before he came into Parliament’. Mr Garner later clarified that it was ‘one dead baby’. The Authority upheld three complaints that the segment was inaccurate and unfair to Mr Garrett. While the broadcaster acknowledged the statement was inaccurate, the Authority found Mr Garner’s correction was dismissive and perfunctory, and insufficient to correct the error....

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...

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 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 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 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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – reference to Israelis – “they’ve got balls but no foreskins” – allegedly offensive and derogatory Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (encouraging denigration or discrimination) – neither denigration nor discrimination seriously encouraged – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] While speaking with regular Sydney correspondent Steve Price about terrorism in the Middle East among other matters, the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast (Paul Holmes) commented about the Israelis: “They’ve got balls but no foreskins”. The comment was made on Newstalk ZB at about 6. 55am on Tuesday 23 March 2004. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive....

ComplaintLive to Air: an Election Drama – radio play – National Radio – use of words "God" and "Jesus Christ" as expletives – offensive language – blasphemy FindingsPrinciple 1 – context – no uphold Principle 7 and Guidelines 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f – only Guideline 7a relevant – threshold not achieved – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Live to Air: an Election Drama was the title of a fifty minute-long radio play broadcast on National Radio at 4. 05pm on Sunday 28 July 2002. The dialogue on occasions used the words "God" and "Jesus Christ" as expletives. [2] Stella Anne McArthur complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the irreverent use of holy names. She described their use as offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on a police search that ended up with two officers being shot and a police dog being killed – contained interviews with a neighbour living next to the property where the incident occurred and the Commissioner of Police – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview with Police Commissioner was straightforward and respectful – Mr Broad and the police treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s behaviour and comments did not encourage the denigration of members of the New Zealand police force –…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters....

In a segment on the Mike Hosking Breakfast programme, the host interviewed the Prime Minister about the Government’s decision to extend the Level 3 lockdown restrictions on Auckland in August 2020. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It recognised the value of robust political discourse in the media and the role of media in holding to account those in positions of power. Overall, it found no harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. While some may have found Mr Hosking’s approach and comments distasteful, they did not go beyond what could be expected of an interview of this nature. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Children’s Interests...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-109 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBIN WARNES of Lower Hutt Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Solid Gold FM breakfast show – host told joke about an Indian person who is greeted at the gates of heaven by an angel who shouts “Jesus, your taxi’s here” – complainant felt joke dehumanised Indian people and was racist – allegedly in breach of social responsibility standardFindingsPrinciple 7 and guideline 7a – joke did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Indian people – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On the morning of 27 March 2006, the host of the Solid Gold FM breakfast show made the following joke after saying “I think it’s funny, I hope it doesn’t offend you”: [2] An Indian goes up to heaven, and the angel at the gates says “Yes, what do you want? ”, and the Indian says “I’m here for Jesus!...

ComplaintOne News – item broadcast on Good Friday about modern Stations of the Cross exhibition – included picture of Jesus Christ on the lid of a toilet seat – offensive – unfair to Catholics FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – report of Christian celebration of Easter - context – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The modern and unconventional imagery used in a Stations of the Cross exhibition by a Christian Church group was featured in an item broadcast on One News at 6. 00pm on Good Friday. One image showed a picture of Jesus Christ inside the lid of a toilet seat....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM Breakfast – host and caller used the term “poofter” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment did not contain sufficient invective to reach the threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Between 8am and 9am during the More FM Breakfast programme, broadcast on More FM on 21 May 2010, the hosts discussed how they would be participating in a winter pool jump. A female host said, “So you’ve got to grin and bear it, suck it up. Don’t be a wuss. ” A male host said he had been talking to his dad about it, because he had done a winter swim before....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a spoof of OMC hit song ‘How Bizarre’, in which the singer mimicked the original artist’s accent, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the accent used was an attempt to imitate the distinctive singing voice of Mr Fuemana and sound of ‘How Bizarre’, in the spirit of spoofing the song itself, rather than an attempt to imitate a specifically Māori or Pacific Island English accent. It did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Māori or Pacific Islanders. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...