Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-044:Jackson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-044 PDF209. 06 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-055:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-055 PDF429. 31 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – during interview presenter noted that Māori Party was using “a Chinese lawyer who has a lack of knowledge of Māori process” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s comment was factual and did not carry any invective – broadcast did not encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Te Karere, broadcast on TV One at 4pm on 20 January 2011, the presenter conducted a studio interview with Professor Ranginui Walker about MP Hone Harawira’s position in the Māori Party and the various sources of Mr Harawira’s anger at his party....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – item reported on Labour MP Shane Jones throwing a “Lazarus party” to mark his return to the front bench – presenter commented, “Leaving aside anything about resurrections and dodgy movies in hotels, Shane Jones is actually known for referring to himself in the third person” – presenter’s comment allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter did not make any reference to Christ and nothing in the broadcast would have offended or distressed viewers, or encouraged discrimination or denigration against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-120:Moffatt-Vallance and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-120 PDF383. 9 KB...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about an item on Mike Hosking Breakfast. The complainant was concerned about a discussion of unvaccinated health workers, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainant’s personal views and in all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 106/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANCIS FISCHER of Dipton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-143 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP DUNLOP of Pokeno Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Station identification promos broadcast on TV One included the slogan "Together We’re One", and the logo "Celebrating New Zealand". Mr Seymour complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that the promos encouraged the denigration of Maori and, in particular, discrimination against the legitimate expression of Maori cultural and political beliefs. They promoted, he wrote, an ideology that was inherently assimilationist. TVNZ responded that the reference to "One" was to TV One. The promos implicitly reflected a "one-ness" between TV One and its viewers, and placed that theme in a determinedly bi-cultural context which recognised cultural diversity, it replied. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Seymour referred his 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....

Ms Loates declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint 20/20 – documentary – mental health outpatient– inaccuracies – lacked balance – discrimination against mental health patients – verbal agreement about interview content Findings(1) Standard G1 – inaccuracies not proven – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided where required through interview with mental health provider – no further imbalance proven – mentally ill not portrayed as inferior – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 20/20 called "Flatmate Wanted" was broadcast on TV3 on 12 September 1999, from 7. 30pm. The item concerned the deaths of Lachlan Jones and Malcolm Beggs and was critical of the mental health system, which it implicated in the deaths....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host commented that Māori Television had complained to the BSA about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast – referred to Māori Television as “racist, separatist, and apartheid” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly opinion – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 16 June 2006 on Radio Pacific at approximately 6. 10am, the host John Banks commented that Māori Television had complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of the dairy industry in the Waikato region. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of dairy farming, and breached a number of other broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. The item was not inaccurate or misleading in the ways alleged by the complainant; rather, it focused on instances of bad practice within the dairy industry and did not suggest these were commonplace. Furthermore, the item did not breach the privacy of a local farming family, as they were not identifiable or otherwise referred to in the footage....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2017-485-71. 12 MBSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Paul Henry about Independence Day celebrations in the USA featured an interview with the USA’s Ambassador to New Zealand. Prior to the interview, Paul Henry referred to the USA claiming ‘its independence from England’. He later quoted Margaret Thatcher, referring to her as the ‘Prime Minister of England’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Henry’s statements were inaccurate and discriminatory in that he should have referred to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, rather than England. The item was focused primarily on Independence Day celebrations and the statements would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole....

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 has upheld complaints from two complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthak Vichar, broadcast on Access Community Radio Inc (Planet FM). During the programme, the hosts made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding their fundraising activities and whether they were trustworthy, and played a recorded phone conversation with Jaspreet Singh on-air. The Authority found that the comments reflected negatively on the complainants, and that Jaspreet Singh would not have known that the phone call would be played on-air. The Authority upheld the complaint under the fairness standard but did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on The AM Show, in which a booth designed to enable doctors to perform discrete testicle examinations was likened to a ‘confession booth’, breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority found that, in the context of the segment, the comparison was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. It also did not reach the level of malice or nastiness necessary to denigrate a section of the community. The public health message in the broadcast was an important one and overall the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interview with former Breakfast presenter Paul Henry – questioned Mr Henry on his controversial remarks about the Chief Minister of Delhi – comments about the Chief Minister were re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on Paul Henry and his perspective on the various controversies in which he was involved – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – Paul Henry’s comments did not extend to a section of the community – interviewer challenged his views – interview did not encourage discrimination or denigration of Indian people – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments about the Chief Minister revisited in current affairs context – interview would not have…...