Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/95 Dated the 15th day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COVEN OF NATURAL LAW of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintTV2 Big Comedy Gala – offensive language – "fuck, shit, motherfucker" – religious skit – denigrated Christians FindingsStandard G2 – stand-up comedy – AO time – preceded by a warning – offensive language used infrequently – not inappropriate in context – no uphold Standard G13 – did not amount to denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme TV2 Big Comedy Gala, featuring stand-up comedians in a night club setting, was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 05pm on 19 May 2001. A M Langford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that some of the language was very offensive, and one skit ridiculed the Christian faith. In reply, TVNZ acknowledged that the broadcast might not have been to everyone’s taste....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 3 News item reported on allegations of widespread doping amongst Russian athletes and included a reference to the disqualification of a Belarussian shot-putter at the London Olympics. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the item was misleading, unbalanced and denigrated Russians by failing to differentiate between Belarus and Russia. The reporter accurately described the Belarussian athlete and the Russian Olympic team, and in the context of the item viewers would not have been misled into thinking Belarus and Russia were the same country. The item portrayed a range of significant viewpoints on the allegations of doping amongst Russian Olympic athletes and did not contain any material which discriminated against, or denigrated, Russians. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A 3 News item reported on allegations of widespread doping amongst Russian athletes....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-050:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-050 PDF632. 24 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-041:Zohrab and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-041 PDF273. 25 KB...

SummaryIn an item on Morning Report broadcast on 12 August at 7. 28am, the presenter suggested to an investment advisor, when he was interviewed about the possible sale of the Wellington Airport, that potential buyers would "have to be blind" to think the sale was not a political minefield. Mr Mosen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that he, as a blind person, found the comment highly offensive, as it equated blindness with stupidity. He maintained that it was distressing and unhelpful to have ignorant and inaccurate perceptions about blindness reflected by a current affairs presenter. He sought an apology. RNZ defended the use of the phrase which it asserted was used in a colloquial sense and also a metaphorical sense, and maintained that the meaning of the figurative use was perfectly clear....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – host spoke to a number of women about their experiences with dowry abuse in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – highlighted problem of dowry abuse and presented experiences of a few women – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccurate statements – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify any group or section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

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....

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....

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) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overnight Talkback– during a discussion about gay marriage, the host described the complainant, a caller, as “incredibly rude” – host read out complainant’s fax and repeated the word “homophobic” but spelled out “faggot” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s use of the word “homophobic” and spelling out of “faggot” did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Overnight Talkback, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 6 June 2012, the host and callers discussed the issue of gay marriage. The host spoke to a caller, “David from Queenstown”, whom he described as “incredibly rude”, before terminating the call....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive – host and producer referred to rugby players as “Jesus” and “God” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – use of “Jesus” and “God” to compliment rugby players would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context – comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive on Radio Sport, the host and producer discussed the selection of the All Blacks training squad, including a rookie, Steven Luatua, who played for the Auckland Blues....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-131:Ellmers and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-131 PDF282. 26 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-047 Decision No: 1996-048 Decision No: 1996-049 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LEN MCKENNA of Kaitaia Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

A majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the host of The Chase New Zealand, Paul Henry, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. When a contestant told Henry she would spend any prize money on a trip to the Taj Mahal in India, Henry said ‘You’ve got to be so careful what you eat,’ and that several of his friends had ‘exploded’ in the Taj Mahal, where it is ‘very hard to find a bathroom’. Later in the episode, Henry said, ‘$45,000, Taj Mahal, you can buy a lot of wet wipes with that. ’ The complainant said the comments had the potential to encourage discrimination against India and Indian people, through reinforcing harmful racial stereotypes that India (and, by association, Indian people) are dirty and unhygienic....