Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Harry – fictional crime drama series set in South Auckland in which a detective investigated a spate of robberies – allegedly in breach of standards relating to discrimination and denigration, law and order, good taste and decency, violence, and accuracyFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama (guideline 7a) – programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, South Pacific people as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – depiction of criminal activity in fictional drama did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content brief and inexplicit – acceptable in the context of AO-rated programme broadcast at 9....

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

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Newstalk ZB on 2 April 2014, in response to a news item reporting that the average New Zealand woman weighed 72 kilograms, the host Rachel Smalley could be heard, during an advertisement break, referring to these women as ‘heifers’ and ‘a bunch of lardos’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient, or that the comments breached standards of good taste and decency. Size or weight is not one of the specified sections of the community under the discrimination and denigration standard, the comments were off the cuff and not intended for broadcast, and the host and the broadcaster both issued public apologies....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that ACT leader David Seymour MP was bullied and treated unfairly on Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket. Mr Seymour called the show to present his perspective on comments made by Mr Plunket moments earlier about Mr Seymour’s motivation for sponsoring the End of Life Choice Bill. The Authority found that, while Mr Plunket’s interviewing style was robust and challenging, Mr Seymour was not treated unfairly given the nature of the programme, the fact that Mr Seymour initiated the conversation and expressed his views, and Mr Seymour’s position and his experience with the media. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not breach the balance standard as it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, which is required for the balance standard to apply....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about Mike Hosking’s statement on Mike Hosking Breakfast that the Duchess of Sussex was a ‘shallow, self-absorbed, attention-seeking, woke bandwagon-riding hussy’. The Authority found it was not likely to cause widespread, undue offence in the context. Although the discrimination and denigration standard applied, as the word ‘hussy’ may refer to and reflect upon women as a section of society, the comments did not meet the threshold justifying regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was a breach of broadcasting standards for an expert interviewee to suggest the anti-mask/anti-vaccination movement was behind bomb threats made to several New Zealand schools. The Authority found that while the issue of who was responsible constituted a controversial issue of public importance, the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, so the balance standard was not breached. It also found that anti-mask/anti-vaccination advocates are not groups to which the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on Sunday breached the accuracy, balance, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast featured a 30 minute report on Aotearoa New Zealand’s medical staffing shortages, and explored whether this issue could be alleviated by the migration of medical staff from the USA, particularly those dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v Wade. The complainants considered the broadcast unbalanced, favouring a ‘pro-choice’ perspective....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Orange Roughies – promo – used words “for Christ’s sake” – allegedly blasphemous and derogatory of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – distinct different dictionary meanings of “Christ” - context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration – high threshold not reached – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A promo for the forthcoming drama series Orange Roughies was broadcast on TV One on a number of occasions in mid May 2006. In one of the brief sequences included in the promo, one of the characters exclaimed “you’re married for Christ’s sake! ” as he walked past a parked car containing a husband and wife apparently having sex....

ComplaintVoice of Islam – comments about homosexuality and AIDS – discrimination/denigration – incited hatred, intolerance and violence toward homosexualsFindingsStandard 6 and Guideline 6g – hate speech – encouraged discrimination and denigration – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] A lecture titled “Challenges Facing Muslims in the New Millennium” was broadcast on Voice of Islam on Triangle Television between 3. 00pm and 4. 00pm on Monday 29 September 2003. [2] Mr Clayton complained to Triangle Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme included comments which incited hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals. [3] Triangle Television maintained that broadcasting standards were not breached, as Standard 6 of the Television Code allowed for the broadcast of “genuinely held opinion”. [4] Dissatisfied with Triangle Television's decision, Mr Clayton referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – Larry Williams Breakfast Show – three-way discussion between host and two guests about Tuvaluan overstayer recently convicted of assaulting his wife for second time – guest made comment purporting to justify violence against women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency – allegedly denigratory of women Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – in context, no obscene language or content – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – Guideline 7a (denigration) – taken in isolation comments offensive – but in context, comments clearly not meant to be taken at face value – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes’ Breakfast Show – commentary on Ariel Sharon’s visit to Temple Mount – commentary on Middle East situation – unbalanced – inaccurate – socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 4 – editorial piece – other significant points of view presented in period of current interest – no uphold Principle 6 – clearly presenter’s opinion – comments not presented as fact – no uphold Principle 7 – not denigratory to extent envisaged by principle – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary In an item on Paul Holmes’ Breakfast Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 16 October 2000, the presenter commented on the Middle East situation. The presenter described Mr Ariel Sharon as a "dreadful beast" and as "mad, cynical [and] Arab-hating....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Show – guest host read out text message which used the phrase “pre-op tranny” – phrase repeated by a listener who called the show – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard – broadcaster upheld the complaint under Standard 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient considering the nature of the breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that reality show Naked and Afraid, broadcast after 9pm on Rush, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, a man and woman are left in a remote location naked and with few tools, with the goal to survive for 21 days. With reference to previous decisions on similar programmes, the Authority found the complaint should not be determined as it has consistently not upheld complaints concerning adult-oriented content on late night television when tools aiding choice and control are available. Further, the complaint concerned the complainant’s personal preferences and such complaints are not, in general, capable of being resolved by this complaints process. Decline to Determine: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a news bulletin on RNZ Concert which reported on Māori and Pasifika honoured in the 2024 New Year Honours list. The complainant alleged that only referring to Māori and Pasifika honourees was ‘reverse racism’. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could be properly determined by its complaints process. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

Summary An episode of Dharma and Greg was broadcast on TV2 on 14 October 1998 between 7. 30-8. 00pm. A male character described two women as "deaf Cockney humpbacks". Mr Kirkland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the portrayal of deaf people in the programme was discriminatory and paternalistic, and perpetuated a stereotypical view about deaf people being stupid. He sought an apology from the broadcaster. TVNZ pointed out that this was a comedy programme in which the two characters regularly assumed character roles. In this case one decided to be a humpback who was hard of hearing while the other adopted a Cockney accent. A male character said to them "Hello deaf Cockney humpbacks". TVNZ said it found nothing in this exchange which suggested that deaf people were intellectually limited, nor anything that would encourage discrimination against deaf people....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair and denigratoryFindingsPreliminary findings – Authority applied TVNZ v VoTE approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Authority must consider whether finding a breach of standards would impose unreasonable limitation on free speech Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors favour broadcaster – public interest does not require finding a breach of standards simply because broadcasts lampooned Catholicism – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold in light of protection given to satire in 6(g)(iii) – threshold one of vitriol or hate speech – fact that offence caused of itself insufficient to find breach of standard – programmes not realistic as complainant alleged – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – satirical programmes would only be unfair in…...