Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment made during live coverage of a Black Caps cricket match breached the discrimination and denigration standard for ridiculing mental health/illness – and, by extension, people with mental illness. Commentator Scotty Stevenson said, ‘Built on the site of a former asylum, Otago Boys’ High School. Having met some of the old boys, don't think much has changed. ’ The Authority recognised that while some may view the comment as insensitive and inappropriate, the comment did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. The broadcast was unlikely to encourage the different treatment of those with mental illness to their detriment, nor devalue their reputation. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and declined to take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about two young people training for the priesthood at a seminary on Ponsonby Road – reporter used phrases “big boss” and “big guy” when referring to God and said “helluva” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryAgnes-Mary Brooke, editor of the recently published first issue of "The Best Underground Press – Critical Review" was interviewed on Kim Hill, broadcast on National Radio at 10. 50am on 6 August 1999. Ms Brooke complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interviewer was rude and antagonistic. During the interview, she said, she had been dealt with unfairly and had not been given an opportunity to advance her opinions. Furthermore, she contended that there were some inaccuracies in the interviewer’s comments. Denying that there were any inaccuracies, RNZ maintained that Ms Brooke was not treated unfairly, and had been given an adequate opportunity to express her opinions. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Ms Brooke referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – reference to Israelis – “they’ve got balls but no foreskins” – allegedly offensive and derogatory Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (encouraging denigration or discrimination) – neither denigration nor discrimination seriously encouraged – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] While speaking with regular Sydney correspondent Steve Price about terrorism in the Middle East among other matters, the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast (Paul Holmes) commented about the Israelis: “They’ve got balls but no foreskins”. The comment was made on Newstalk ZB at about 6. 55am on Tuesday 23 March 2004. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on Newshub Live at 6pm breached the discrimination and denigration standard in its discussion of the social media and wider impact of the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial. The Authority noted the issue of the genders of victims and perpetrators of domestic violence was not the focus of the broadcast, and it did not reach the high threshold of condemnation necessary to find a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the introduction for a piece broadcast on RNZ Concert: ‘Being a coloured man wasn’t an advantage to 19th century English composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor. But he did, fortunately, have some influential supporters… so his music did get heard. ’ The complaint was that the description of the composer as ‘coloured’ perpetuated racism. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns and the changing nature of language over time. In this case, it found the description of the composer, in the context of the broadcast, did not encourage discrimination or denigration and was unlikely to cause offence at a level justifying restriction of the right to freedom of expression.   Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a broadcast in which two co-hosts made fun of the third for giving his pet pig a name shared by ‘one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party’, and the three of them joked about distinguishing names associated with Hitler and the Nazis by spelling them differently. The Authority noted the comments may be considered distasteful, in that they trivialised the notoriety of Hitler and the Nazis, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – news reader stated “What is wrong with these people, I ask”, with reference to Richie McCaw and others declining invitations to Royal wedding – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complaint frivolous – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Wednesday 27 April 2011, reported on Prince William and Kate Middleton’s plans following their upcoming wedding. At the end of the item, the reporter stated: And just this morning we’ve heard that a third wedding guest has returned his invitation....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Ip Man – movie about a martial arts legend, based on historical events, was broadcast in various timeslots during children’s viewing times – contained violence – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 8 (responsible programming) – broadcaster accepted that the movie was incorrectly classified ‘M’ when it should have been AO, and that it should have been broadcast in the AO time-band, not during children’s viewing times – upheld  Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests by incorrectly classifying the movie and screening it outside of AO time – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – while there was some violent behaviour it was not excessive and was consistent with expectations of a martial arts film – however inappropriate classification and timeslots meant broadcaster did not exercise…...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-084:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-084 PDF500. 47 KB...

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-054:Rickit and Independent Broadcasting Company (1990) Ltd - 1992-054 PDF393. 82 KB...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – included discussion on a study which showed a link between domestic violence and animal abuse – host made a number of comments that were critical of the women who took part in the study and of women who stayed in violent relationships because of their pets – for example, he said that they were “morons”, “probably deserved to be abused”, and were “born sub-normal” – host made comments that were critical of the White Ribbon campaign – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – talkback is a robust and opinionated environment – host’s approach could be considered offensive and provocative but was for effect and to generate a response – overall, programmes were balanced – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) –…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 95/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN E WEBB of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary The film Primal Fear was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 July 1999. It concerned the trial of a young man accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop. Aaron Authier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film was an attack on Christianity. He said he objected to the blasphemous language used and the manner in which Catholic clergy had been represented in the film. In his view, it should have been preceded with a warning about its content. TVNZ responded by noting that the film was classified as AO and was screened during AO time. Furthermore, it was preceded by a warning which emphasised that it was intended for adult audiences. To the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and misrepresented the clergy, TVNZ responded by reminding the complainant that the film was a work of fiction....