Search Rapua

ComplaintRadio Sport – Martin Devlin – Japanese "vile gits" – East Timorese "gooks" – offensive language – racist – denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 1 – talkback context – strong language to be expected – no uphold Principle 7 – reference to East Timorese militia as "gooks" racist and denigratory – upholdOrderCosts of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Japanese were referred to by the host as "vile gits" and "pricks" in the context of their whaling practices on a Radio Sport programme broadcast on 27 September 2000 at about 8. 30am. The host suggested that helicopter gunships should be sent to blow up their whaling boats. Next, a guest contributor on the programme referred to East Timorese militia as "gooks". Doug Richards complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks were offensive and racist....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – 4 June report on New Zealander and Viva Palestina aid worker Nicola Enchmarch’s reaction to being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza – 5 June report on New Zealand protest marchers demonstrating against the raid – both items allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items provided a New Zealand perspective on the raid – reports did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact he considered to be inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6…...

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....

ComplaintChannel Z – News item – arrest of man for the kidnapping of Kahurautete Durie – reported that the accused expected to have a hard time in jail – announcer expressed pleasure at that prospect – offensive, unfair and unbalanced – broadcaster upheld aspect that item failed to distinguish between fact and opinionFindingsPrinciple 1 – not offensive – no upholdPrinciple 2 – did not encourage breach of law – no upholdPrinciple 3 – accused not named – no breach of privacy – no upholdPrinciple 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdPrinciple 6 – facts sourced and distinguished from opinion – no upholdPrinciple 7 – gang spokesmen cited – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The arrest of a 54 year-old man accused of kidnapping Kahurautete Durie was reported in a news item on Channel Z broadcast at 8. 00am on 22 April 2002....

Summary The words "stick my hard dick up your butt" were reported by the complainant to have been used by an announcer on The Rock at around 10. 20pm on 20 July 1999. The complainant reported that the same announcer used the words "in between the legs" in the course of a discussion about an eclipse of the moon, during the evening of 28 July 1999. The Rape Prevention Group Inc. complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that it had breached Principles 1 and 7 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Rape Prevention Group maintained that the two comments were offensive and harmful to women. It said that being referred to as sex objects and "mere bodies" degraded women. The broadcaster responded that The Rock was targeted at a male audience aged between 18-39 years and that its style appealed to large numbers of that group....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Police Ten 7 – “Bad boys” episode looked at “bad boys’ most memorable moments” – contained coarse language and nudity which were censored – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – content would not have been unexpected in a long-running reality series about the work of the police – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme preceded by clear warning advising parental guidance – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – featured a story on the experience of a tenant whose family allegedly suffered health problems as a result of living on a property that contained traces of methamphetamine – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that the house was formerly used to manufacture methamphetamine – overstated evidence, for example by reference to the “house” and “home” as opposed to just the garage, and by creating impression a ‘P’ lab had existed when the contamination was marginal and could have been caused by smoking – failed to outline the parameters of the FISL report or make any reference to NZDDA report which found no trace of methamphetamine – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld Standard 6…...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-068:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-068 PDF353. 15 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence in Christchurch following the earthquakes. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that re-enactments showing domestic violence denigrated men and were ‘gender biased’. The Authority has previously declined to uphold a similar complaint from the complainant, which ought to have put him notice of the likely outcome of this decision. The re-enactments were visual wallpaper only, and the gender of the actors was not material. Declined to determine: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction[1] A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence over the Christmas period in Christchurch, observed in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes. The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 20 December 2013....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs broadcast an item entitled 'What Lies Beneath', which reported on the recent conviction of Northland farmer Allan Titford and examined the cultural and legal impact he had on race relations in New Zealand. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the item was biased, inaccurate and unfair. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's conviction, the item was materially accurate and subject to editorial discretion, and no one was denigrated or treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Native Affairs broadcast an item entitled 'What Lies Beneath', which reported on the recent conviction of Northland farmer Allan Titford and examined the cultural and legal impact that he had on race relations in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A complaint from Seafood New Zealand Ltd (Seafood NZ) about an interview between Morning Report host Guyon Espiner and Dr Russell Norman of Greenpeace was not upheld. Dr Norman and Mr Espiner discussed Greenpeace’s view that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had been ‘captured’ by the fishing industry, and why MPI has not prosecuted anyone for under-reporting whiting catches, with reference to a leaked MPI report from 2012. While RNZ acknowledged the interview did not meet its internal editorial guidelines, as it should have at least acknowledged the views of other stakeholders, the Authority did not find any breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found the interview was unlikely to mislead listeners as it was clear that the interview comprised Dr Norman’s and Greenpeace’s opinions and analysis....

A complaint that a radio host asking a caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ breached the discrimination and denigration standard has not been upheld. A broadcast of Afternoons with Andrew Dickens featured a discussion between Mr Dickens and a caller about Māori sovereignty, the Treaty of Waitangi and racism. During the discussion Mr Dickens asked the caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ The Authority found that while the comment was patronising, misinformed and likely to offend some listeners, it did not contain the level of condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and therefore any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a remark ‘there will probably be some racists tuning in’ in reference to the English greeting following ‘kia ora koutou katoa’ during a comedy skit shown on The AM Show. The complainant alleged this was ‘racist’ and the broadcaster should apologise to ‘all English-speaking people’. The Authority found ‘English-speaking people’ are not a section of society to whom the standard applies. In any event, the comment was not directed specifically at English speakers, it was satirical and it would not have met the threshold required for a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine five complaints about different Newshub Live broadcasts under several standards, on the basis they were trivial, vexatious, or in all the circumstances, did not warrant determination. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial and vexatious, and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy, Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Programme Information, Law and Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment made on Mike Hosking Breakfast referring to the use of te reo Māori names for government departments as the ‘Māorification of this country’. The complainant argued that the comment implied it was a bad thing to be Māori. 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 standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the conviction and sentencing of a New Zealand woman, A, for the murder of her 20-year-old severely autistic and intellectually disabled daughter, B. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item ‘sympathised with the murderer over the victim’ and ‘morally absolved [A]’. The broadcast was a factual news item which reported on the outcome of criminal proceedings involving A, and largely reflected the Judge’s statements at sentencing. It was focused on the circumstances of A’s particular case and did not contain a discussion of the wider issues of violence against disabled people or family violence, and therefore did not require balancing perspectives on these issues....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Today. The complaint was that an interviewee was treated unfairly, and the segment discriminated against and denigrated the elderly. Noting that comments concerning the interviewee were based on his individual actions and views (rather than his status as ‘elderly’) and that the discrimination and denigration standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of genuine expressions of comment, legitimate humour or satire, the Authority found no breach of that standard. In the context, the Authority also found the interviewee was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The Authority has not upheld complaints an interview on Saturday Morning between Kim Hill and Dr Kathleen Stock, a gender critical philosopher, breached broadcasting standards, including the discrimination and denigration, balance and accuracy standards. The broadcast discussed Dr Stock’s perspective on gender identity and her experiences resulting from voicing her perspective, having resigned from her position following a student campaign that accused her of transphobia. The Authority acknowledged the potential harm of the interview, but ultimately found the importance of freedom of expression outweighed any harm caused. The broadcast was clearly signalled as presenting Dr Stock’s perspective, to which she was entitled, and throughout the interview Hill challenged Dr Stock’s views, leaving the audience with a more balanced impression on the issue....