Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Gagaifo O Faiva that reported a Supreme Court of Samoa decision which convicted 11 men in relation to a 2023 kidnapping incident in Lefagaoali’i village, Samoa. The complaint alleged the broadcast discriminated against, denigrated, and was unfair to the 11 men sentenced. The Authority acknowledged the broadcast contributed to the distress felt by the complainant and the men’s families. However, having regard to factors including audience and cultural expectations of the presenter, the high public profile of the kidnapping, and public interest in the broadcast subject matter, the Authority found criticism of the 11 convicted was not unfair and any harm caused was not at a level to justify the Authority’s intervention. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply, since the relevant comments were aimed at individuals as opposed to a protected section of the community....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the comment ‘Australia mugs the Black Caps’ breached the fairness, discrimination and denigration, and balance standards. The comment was typical of sports commentary and was not unfair to the Australian cricket team. As it was directed at the Australian cricket team, rather than a particular section of the community, the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. The balance standard also did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 32/94 Dated the 26th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAJIT THEODORE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-039:Thai Community and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-039 PDF...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Newstalk ZB on 2 April 2014, in response to a news item reporting that the average New Zealand woman weighed 72 kilograms, the host Rachel Smalley could be heard, during an advertisement break, referring to these women as ‘heifers’ and ‘a bunch of lardos’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient, or that the comments breached standards of good taste and decency. Size or weight is not one of the specified sections of the community under the discrimination and denigration standard, the comments were off the cuff and not intended for broadcast, and the host and the broadcaster both issued public apologies....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two episodes of Story featured items about self-described ‘professional political campaigner’ Simon Lusk. In the first item, presenter Duncan Garner was shown hunting with Mr Lusk, and Mr Lusk apparently shot two deer. Excerpts of political figures being interviewed about their involvement with Mr Lusk, and of Mr Lusk discussing such involvement, were shown throughout the items. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the items were in breach of multiple broadcasting standards for the way Mr Lusk’s involvement in politics was reported and for featuring footage of deer hunting. The footage of the deer hunting was not so graphic or gratuitous that it would have offended a significant number of viewers, including child viewers....

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....

Warning: This decision discusses issues of sexual abuse of children and suicide. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that documentary 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth was inaccurate by not mentioning the denomination or titles of school chaplains involved in sexual abuse of students, or a complaint that the inclusion of re-enactments of memories of survivors re-traumatised victims of abuse, promoted sexual offending against children, breached privacy and was unfair to child actors involved. The Authority found that omission to mention the denomination or title of chaplains would not have materially altered the audience’s understanding of the documentary. The Authority also found that the inclusion of re-enactments did not breach the standards nominated, noting in particular that audience members (including survivors of abuse) were given appropriate information to make informed viewing decisions, no re-enactment depicted sexual violence and the offending of paedophiles was condemned throughout....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-058 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR GLYN THOMAS of Palmerston North TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard in relation to a segment on Jack Tame on Saturday Morning. The complaint alleged several comments made by a guest on the programme were racist, including that numerous Chinese and Indian climbers attempted to summit Mt Everest for kudos, and that many Nepalese tour companies had to compete for the bottom of the tourism market, by providing cheap tours and cutting corners. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required for a breach of the standard.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 77/94 Dated the 8th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the title of a segment ‘tradie versus lady’ on ZM’s Bree and Clint. While the Authority agreed with the complainant the title may be sexist and outdated, it did not encourage discrimination and denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-008 Dated the 13th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CREDO SOCIETY INC of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – male character injected with “gay gene” – went to “Straight Camp” where he was encouraged to drink, play full contact football, and “find loose women to have sex with” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and liquor standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – scene had clear humorous and satirical intent – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – scene was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld Standard 11 (liquor) – broadcast did not amount to “liquor promotion” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....