Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-021:Wislang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-021 PDF333. 3 KB...

Two complaints about Sean Plunket’s interview of Te Whānau ā Apanui spokesperson Louis Rapihana were upheld under the discrimination and denigration standard. The interview was about the legal basis for iwi roadblocks in the eastern Bay of Plenty under COVID-19 Alert Level 4 and what the iwi intended to do if anyone refused to comply with the travel permit requirement established under Alert Level 3. The Authority1 found Mr Plunket’s approach during the interview and comments made on-air afterwards had the effect of amplifying negative stereotypes about Māori and the potential to cause widespread harm. Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration Orders: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $3,000 costs to the Crown...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an item on Morning Report discussing data showing Wellington to have the highest assault and sexual assault rates. Discussing the causes for this, the interviewer posed the question: ‘Do we have a problem with masculinity here? ’ and a discussion followed regarding the potential contribution of ‘toxic masculinity’ to Wellington’s crime rate. The Authority found the term did not carry the derogatory connotations suggested and the item did not contain the high level of condemnation or malice towards men required to contravene the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections 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 1989 Homeland – fictional drama series in which the CIA investigates a possible terrorist threat – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama – programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for The Graham Norton Show – promo for Christmas special showed a photograph of a couple dressed as Mary and Joseph holding a dog in swaddling clothes – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour – would not have offended most viewers in context – innocent lampooning of religious figures comes within the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour as opposed to a criticism of Christians – content did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-040:Zohrab and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-040 PDF257. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-082:Woolerton and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-082 PDF245. 5 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on The Project, the hosts discussed a new artificial intelligence technology capable of detecting a person’s sexual orientation through analysis of their facial features. In response, presenter Jesse Mulligan commented, ‘That’s an amazing story, a computer can tell if you’re gay or not. I hope the computer can keep a secret. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment ‘perpetuated the prejudiced view that homosexuality [was] something to be kept secret and… shameful’. The Authority found that, while Mr Mulligan’s comment could be seen as ‘clumsy’ or tactless, it was clearly intended to be humorous and it did not actively encourage the different treatment, or devalue the reputation of, gay people as a section of the community....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a news report covering the US Democratic Convention breached standards by referring to then US President Donald Trump as ‘Trump’ or ‘Donald Trump’ rather than with the title ‘President’. The broadcast was fair to Mr Trump, considering his position and profile as a politician and public figure. It was not misleading to refer to Mr Trump as ‘Donald Trump’ and the report was unlikely to cause widespread offence. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to Mr Trump as an individual. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the leaders’ debate between Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and Hon Judith Collins breached broadcasting standards. The programme carried a high level of public interest. Both debate participants were senior politicians who had a clear understanding of the nature of their participation in the debate and were given fair opportunity to respond to the questions raised. Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

ComplaintTarget – description of house cleaner as tradesperson – denigration of tradespeople – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – offensive Findings (1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – no uphold (3) Standard G4 – no unfairness – no uphold (4) Standard G13 – no denigration or discrimination – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 at 7. 00pm on 14 May 2000 featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial. One of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – 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 warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – segment was an attempt at humour and satire – the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context, was not socially irresponsible, and did not reach high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle. On the basis it was frivolous and trivial, the Authority declined to determine the complaint that the item’s use of the word ‘biker’ gave the impression the motorcyclist was a ‘reckless’ gang member and had caused the accident. ‘Biker’ was a colloquial term referring to the driver of a motorbike, and in any case the words ‘biker’ and ‘motorcylist’ were used interchangeably. Decline to Determine: Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A One News item which reported on an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle used the term ‘biker’ to refer to the motorcyclist. The item was broadcast on 15 October 2013 on TV ONE....

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....