Search Rapua

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....

ComplaintPaul Holmes Breakfast Show – barrage of jokes against French and German military – racist and offensive Findings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – no discrimination – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A barrage of jokes relayed on the Paul Holmes Breakfast Show between 6. 00–8. 30am by its presenter, Paul Holmes, was broadcast on The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) on Friday 14 February 2003. The jokes targetted the French and German military. [2] Sylvia Shepherd complained to TRN, the broadcaster, that the jokes were racist, anti-French and offensive. [3] In response, TRN stated that the jokes, which had previously been published in the Sun newspaper in Britain did not encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, the French and were legitimate examples of humour or satire....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Classic Hits – host told a joke about two people in a “mental hospital” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard only applies to people taking part or referred to in a programme – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item was clearly signalled as a joke – legitimate use of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Classic Hits Breakfast at 7. 45am on 13 June 2007, included a segment called “the 7. 45 funny” in which the following joke was broadcast: Jim and Edna were both patients at a mental hospital....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Panel, a study was discussed which showed women are now outdoing men in some areas of cognition. The panellists joked about whether the study explained the reasons behind a ‘man’s look’ or why men do not replace toilet rolls. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that their comments denigrated men. They were clearly intended to be humorous and light-hearted, and did not carry any invective. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During The Panel, the male host and female panellists discussed a new study which showed women are catching up to men in some areas of cognition and outpacing them in others due to better health, education and living conditions....

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment made on Newstalk ZB referring to the delays that would result while ‘people are in there determining whether they’re transgender or not’ if the census was to be combined with voting. The complainant argued the comment was condescending and derisive of transgender people and that reference to the question on gender identity was irrelevant to the point the host was making. While recognising the comments may be offensive to some people, in the context they did not meet the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with Dame Jacinda Ardern on RNZ National, in which presenter Jesse Mulligan used the word ‘prick’ when asking Ardern about a past comment she made in Parliament. The complaint alleged the use of this language breached multiple standards. The Authority found it was low-level language that would not have surprised or offended most listeners in the context or alarmed or distressed any children who happened to be listening. The remaining standards did not apply.   Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal and Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 59/94 Dated the 2nd day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment made during live coverage of a Black Caps cricket match breached the discrimination and denigration standard for ridiculing mental health/illness – and, by extension, people with mental illness. Commentator Scotty Stevenson said, ‘Built on the site of a former asylum, Otago Boys’ High School. Having met some of the old boys, don't think much has changed. ’ The Authority recognised that while some may view the comment as insensitive and inappropriate, the comment did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. The broadcast was unlikely to encourage the different treatment of those with mental illness to their detriment, nor devalue their reputation. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards about an interviewee saying, on Midday Report, Foreign Affairs Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters was ‘touching himself instead of doing a real job of caring for New Zealanders in difficulty’. Noting the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures, the Authority found the brief comment would not have left listeners with an unfairly negative impression of Peters. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Danny Watson – discussion about the Catholic Church’s excommunication of the mother and doctor of a nine-year-old girl in Brazil who had been raped, become pregnant, and had an abortion – the view of one of the people who rang in support of the Church’s actions was later criticised by other callers – a number of callers rang in criticising the Church’s actions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and Catholic Church treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – criticisms of the Catholic Church lacked necessary invective for a breach of the standard – robust nature of talkback – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – 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 – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-014:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-014 PDF369. 17 KB...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast discussing racial tensions arising from coalition government policies. The item mentioned a 1News Verian poll on whether the coalition government’s policies were increasing, decreasing, or making no real difference to racial tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complainant alleged the broadcast, and the poll were ‘incredibly biased’ and that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it raised issues under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards that could all be dismissed on grounds previously explained to the complainant; the broadcast could not be considered to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the complaint concerned issues of personal preference and had been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision....

A segment on The Project reported on ‘hateful attacks’ occurring during Pride month, including claims of discrimination at Bethlehem College (and the Ministry of Education’s announcement it will investigate the issue) and the burning down of a Rainbow Youth centre in Tauranga. The segment included an interview with a rainbow activist who considered ‘extremist Christians’ had burnt the centre down. The presenters discussed the issue following the report and noted they hoped the investigation would bring about ‘some change in a place that really needs it. ’ The complainant considered the segment breached various standards as the cause of the fire was under investigation at the time of the broadcast, and the College was portrayed unfairly. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the relevant comments did not reach the high threshold justifying a restriction on freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....