Search Rapua

Complaint Radio Pacific – talkback host Mark Bennett – critical of appointment of gay or lesbian police liaison officer – comments said to encourage denigration – inaccurate – unfairFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – odious comment – obsolete stereotypes – comparators used displayed illegal behaviour – high threshold for breach not attainedPrinciple 5 and Guideline 5c – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 6 and Guideline 6c – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary[1] The appointment of a gay and lesbian police liaison officer in Hamilton was the subject of critical comment by the host (Mark Bennett) in a broadcast on Radio Pacific talkback. The comments were broadcast at about 3. 15pm on Wednesday 15 October 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Border Patrol – undeclared meat package from France intercepted at Auckland International Mail Centre – MAF official commented that people eat horse in France and discussed the dangers associated with raw meat in terms of its potential to carry diseases – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment about diseases not directed at French people – did not encourage discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the reality TV series Border Patrol was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 26 July 2010. Border Patrol was a locally produced television programme that followed the daily activities of New Zealand’s border security staff, including Customs officials at airports and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) officials at international mail centres....

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 1989Overnight Talkback– during a discussion about gay marriage, the host described the complainant, a caller, as “incredibly rude” – host read out complainant’s fax and repeated the word “homophobic” but spelled out “faggot” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s use of the word “homophobic” and spelling out of “faggot” did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Overnight Talkback, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 6 June 2012, the host and callers discussed the issue of gay marriage. The host spoke to a caller, “David from Queenstown”, whom he described as “incredibly rude”, before terminating the call....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-007:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-007 PDF322. 28 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an interview on Saturday Morning, where the host misgendered and ‘deadnamed’ the interviewee, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the host’s words, it found the words were directed at the interviewee as an individual, not a section of society as required by the standard. The Authority, in implying the fairness standard, did not consider listeners would have been left with a negative impression of the interviewee. The potential harm therefore did not reach the threshold justifying regulatory intervention.    Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about Sports Chat on RNZ’s Morning Report, during which the guest commentator briefly summarised violence surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match against local Dutch team Ajax in November in Amsterdam, including: ‘the Amsterdam Mayor has come out and said, look, criminals on scooters searched the city for Maccabi supporters in hit-and-run attacks. …said [they were] all antisemitic. ’ The complaint was that RNZ ‘severely distorted’ the context of the events to the point of inaccuracy; discriminated against and denigrated ‘the Amsterdam people who responded to Maccabi’s racist provocations’ and immigrants, by ‘choosing to represent this as antisemitism’; and lacked balance and fairness by excluding Amsterdam locals’ perspective. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the brief summary of the Amsterdam mayor’s response was not materially misleading in the context of Sports Chat, and the remaining standards did not apply....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 85/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 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 J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-052 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R TUNNICLIFF of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 76/94 Dated the 1st day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by TERRY TARRANT of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Graeme Hill Show – included commentary from well-known atheist Pat Condell – Mr Condell made negative statements about religion and those who hold religious beliefs – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues and denigration and discrimination standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – Bill of Rights Act – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked the necessary invective to reach the threshold for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – segment was an opinion piece – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Graeme Hill Show was broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 12. 55pm on Saturday 5 September 2009....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News about a spate of dog attacks in South Auckland. During the item’s introduction, an image of a black and white dog was depicted behind the presenter. The complainant said the image was of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (‘Staffy) and its use may erroneously ‘encourage viewers to be fearful of Staffies, maybe even encouraging mistreatment’. The Authority found use of the image would not have caused viewers to fear or mistreat Staffies. The item did not suggest certain dog breeds are dangerous. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld complaints about a Breakfast interview with Labour MP Tangi Utikere. During the interview, Utikere was asked about reports of a ‘leaker’ within the Labour caucus, and was repeatedly questioned on whether he himself was the leaker. The complainants alleged the interview amounted to bullying and denigrated Utikere. The Authority acknowledged the questioning was sustained, but was within the scope of the type of questioning expected of a politician, particularly in the lead up to an election, and the broadcast was not in breach of the fairness standard (with respect to treatment of Utikere or former Minister Kiritapu Allan). The balance and discrimination standards were either not applicable or not breached.   Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/94 Dated the 8th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CREDO SOCIETY INCORPORATED of Auckland Broadcaster ACCESS COMMUNITY RADIO AUCKLAND INCORPORATED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments during a documentary on New Zealand’s involvement in the World War I military campaign in Gallipoli breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, one of the presenters was shown a photograph of a woman behind bars, in the context of a conversation about prostitutes being available for troops stationed in Egypt. The presenter then made a derogatory comment about the appearance of the woman. The complainant submitted the comments made in the broadcast denigrated both women and sex workers. The Authority acknowledged that the comment regarding the woman’s appearance in particular, which also diminished the seriousness of some women’s experiences in World War I, was insensitive and unnecessary, and would be considered sexist and offensive to some viewers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Worldwatch reported on a request from the Iraqi Prime Minister to President Obama for continued assistance in defeating Islamic State militants in his country. Another item reported on a rally which took place in Nigeria's capital to mark the first anniversary of the abduction of some 200 school girls by the 'terrorist group Boko Haram'. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of the terms 'Islamist terrorism' and 'terrorist' was selective and denigrated people who follow Islam. The references were accurate, did not carry any invective and were not exclusive to Islamic groups so the programme as a whole could not be considered to encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, all people of the Islamic religion. The complainant did not specify who he believed had been treated unfairly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....