Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment referring to a rugby player as a ‘Jew’ because he was unwilling to pay for his wedding breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority observed that the comment was an example of casual anti-Semitism and such comments can contribute to the normalisation of racism. However, while the Authority considered the comment to be ignorant and disrespectful, in the context it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint regarding two broadcasts, relating to threats to public officials over the Government’s use of 1080 (including footage of an anti-1080 protest featuring the complainant), was not upheld. The Authority found the use of the footage, in segments on Newshub and The AM Show, did not result in any unfairness to the complainant. The Authority considered these broadcasts did not link the complainant, or the majority of anti-1080 protestors, to the threats, as both broadcasts stated that the threatening behaviour was from the fringes of the movement. The Authority determined that the audience was therefore unlikely to be misled or misinformed. The Authority also found a comment made by host Duncan Garner during The AM Show segment, implying Willie Apiata should be sent to harm the people who made the threats, did not breach broadcasting standards....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a personal anecdote told by Seven Sharp presenter Jeremy Wells, describing the moment ‘Angela D’Audney sat on my desk as a 20-year-old in a leopard-print mini-skirt’. Stumbling over his words, Mr Wells then said, ‘see, it’s got me excited even thinking about it’. The complaint was that Mr Wells: outlined sexually inappropriate conduct against a female coworker; undermined and demeaned his female coworkers; and by saying it on national television, normalised and condoned sexual discrimination in the workplace. The Authority acknowledged Mr Wells’ choice of anecdote was ill-advised and inappropriate and that it may have offended some people. However it emphasised that in itself is not sufficient to find a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration. There is a high threshold for finding a breach, in light of the important right to freedom of expression....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-115 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY (Auckland) Broadcaster MAX TV LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item did not sufficiently include balancing comment. The item presented a number of comments in support of the beneficiaries, and it was clear the interviewees were offering their own opinion, which is not subject to standards of accuracy. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The item featured Social Development Minister Paula Bennett explaining the rationale for restricting beneficiaries’ overseas travel and expressing disappointment with the latest statistics. The item also included comment from Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei and Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesman Alastair Russell....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – host conducted interview with Dick Pound, founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency – host made three references to Jamaica – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Checkpoint contained an interview with Dick Pound, the founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-067–068:Newborn and Becker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-067–068 PDF (1. 07 MB)...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the title of a segment ‘tradie versus lady’ on ZM’s Bree and Clint. While the Authority agreed with the complainant the title may be sexist and outdated, it did not encourage discrimination and denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – media commentator referred to article in Investigate magazine which raised questions about the sexuality of a public figure – commentator said the named public figure was not a “poof” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated homosexuals FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principle 7 – denigration of homosexuals was essence of the complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Media commentator Phil Wallington reviewed the media on National Radio’s Nine to Noon each week during 2006. On 19 September 2006, he was highly critical of the manner in which the magazine Investigate had raised the issue of the sexuality of a public figure....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-025 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by L. CARTER of Rotorua Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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…...

SummaryA news item broadcast on TV3 on 29 June 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm summarised matters raised in a 20/20 programme broadcast the previous evening relating to the dismissal of the choirmaster at St Paul’s Cathedral in Dunedin. It was reported that the choir had returned to the Cathedral to demand the resignation of their Dean. Mr Greet and Mr Barnett complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate. TV3 responded that it was satisfied its report was a fair and accurate summary of the developments in the controversy surrounding the dismissal of the choirmaster which had been the subject of the 20/20 item the previous evening. It declined to uphold the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Greet and Mr Barnett referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Nation – discussed the Labour Party’s proposal to increase the number of female caucus members – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – Labour Party’s proposal was a controversial issue of public importance – two of four panellists who discussed the issue expressed views in support of the proposal – gender of panellists not relevant and spectrum of views meant sufficient balance provided – broadcaster made reasonable efforts and gave reasonable opportunities to provide balance on the issue in the programme – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists did not comment on women in general – programme did not encourage discrimination or denigration against women as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News about a spate of dog attacks in South Auckland. During the item’s introduction, an image of a black and white dog was depicted behind the presenter. The complainant said the image was of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (‘Staffy) and its use may erroneously ‘encourage viewers to be fearful of Staffies, maybe even encouraging mistreatment’. The Authority found use of the image would not have caused viewers to fear or mistreat Staffies. The item did not suggest certain dog breeds are dangerous. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of an American sitcom Dr. Ken, Dr Ken met his wife’s successful former boyfriend, Dr Kevin O’Connell, and was jealous. At the end of the episode, Dr O’Connell was portrayed as being drunk and asking Dr Ken’s staff for a lift home. The three staff all replied in unison, ‘I’ll do it! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the scene normalised rape and portrayed rape against men as a ‘laughing matter’. In the context of a fictional sitcom, which was intended to be humorous, the scene did not carry any level of invective, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Dr....