Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has declined to determine six complaints about various TVNZ broadcasts, under several standards, as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, issues raised had recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination and/or the standards raised did not relate to the relevant complaint. Two complaints were also trivial. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial; and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – reference to streaking incident during rugby game – host commented that streaker used baby oil “no doubt to prepare himself for the police baton” – alleged breach of good taste and decency, balance, fairness and accuracyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – does not apply to editorial/opinion pieces – not upheld Principle 7 – Guideline 7a (denigration) – police not denigrated – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 8. 00am on 23 March 2004 the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB (Paul Holmes) commented about a streaker incident which occurred during a Super 12 Rugby game at Hamilton Park....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Advertising Standards Complaints Board upheld a complaint about a Levi jeans advertisement – host critical of what he regarded as religious bigotry – socially irresponsible – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 6 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 7 – satire – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Paul Holmes, as the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, was highly critical of religious bigotry which, he contended, was the motivation for some people to complain about a television advertisement for Levi jeans. He expressed the view, by way of comment, in a broadcast shortly before 8. 00am on 27 August 2003. [2] Ross Craig complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments lacked balance, fairness and accuracy....

Complaint under section 8(1C) 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, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes – however the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – attempt at humour and satire – freedom of expression outweighed potential harm caused – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – guideline 7a provides exemption for humour and satire – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the then President-Elect Donald Trump’s meeting with rapper Kanye West, and President-Elect Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. At the end of the item, the newsreader stated, ‘And Trump has also chosen a climate change denier, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, to become his Secretary of Energy’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the term ‘climate change denier’ was deeply offensive to all climate change sceptics, particularly because it linked them to ‘Holocaust deniers’, and was inaccurate and unbalanced. ‘Climate change sceptics’ are not a recognised section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies. In any event, the term was used in this item merely to describe a particular perspective on the issue of climate change....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989LMFAO Video Hits – LMFAO song “Shots” broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-081:Woolerton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-081 PDF305. 42 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 101/95 Dated the 12th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN STRINGER of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Fair Go – use of term “Jap import” in referring to second-hand cars – allegedly derogatory Findings Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6g (discrimination and denigration) – term commonly used in a colloquial setting to describe second-hand cars imported from Japan – when used appropriately in context does not carry racially derogatory meaning – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on Fair Go on TV One on 26 May 2004, the presenter twice used the phrase “Jap import” to refer to second hand cars imported into New Zealand from Japan. The item was about imported cars which had been recalled for safety reasons. Complaint [2] E W Doe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the term “Jap import” was derogatory and “perpetuate[d] ignorant and intolerant racist attitudes”....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Morning Grill – offensive remarks about the Queen FindingsPrinciple 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7 – no denigration or discrimination – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] On the Morning Grill programme broadcast by Radio Pacific on 2 August 2002 at approximately 6. 04am, the presenters (Pam Corkery and Paul Henry) discussed the Queen’s recent visit to a mosque in Britain. The presenters focused on the fact that entry into the mosque required the Queen to remove her shoes. [2] H B McMeekin complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the presenters’ comments were "insulting, gratuitous, and ageist". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, the broadcaster submitted that the comments complained about were "lighthearted and were not intended to be offensive....

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 has not upheld two complaints about an item on The Project. A presenter commented ‘I think happily we don’t have many Americans in New Zealand so we probably won’t end up in that situation’, in response to a question from another presenter, about whether New Zealanders would start demanding a right to bear arms as in the United States, in light of a recent knife attack. The complainants alleged these comments were discriminatory against Americans, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to breach the standard and justify restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging sports commentary of the ICC World Test Championship final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The comments ‘it's a story that's akin to David versus Goliath…and living proof that sometimes, just sometimes, nice guys do finish first’ did not refer to a particular section of the community as contemplated by the standard. In any event, it was typical of sports commentary and did not have a prejudicial meaning. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...