Search Rapua

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – Israeli Prime Minister described as the “butcher Sharon” – allegedly offensive, unbalanced, unfair and incited racial disharmonyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – editorial context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – does not apply to opinion pieces – not upheld Principle 5 (unfair) – acceptable opinion – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (encouraged discrimination) – not racial epithet – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 7. 45am on 23 March 2004, the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, Paul Holmes, commented about the killing by the Israelis of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Among other critical remarks, the host described the Prime Minister of Israel as “the butcher Sharon”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Off the Wire – comments about disabled people being “munted” – allegedly denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – no denigration on account of disability – item was legitimate humour – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The participants in the Off the Wire programme broadcast on National Radio on 16 October 2004 discussed recent news events, including the decision of the International Paralympics Committee not to allow a quadriplegic rugby player to attend the Disabled Games. [2] One of the participants, Mike Loder, a comedian, said that the Committee considered “how munted you are” in deciding whether to allow a person to participate in the games....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments that communities in the Far North of New Zealand were an “underclass” whose children would be “feral” and that welfare benefits should be given to stop them having children – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – talkback radio is a robust environment – host’s comments were extreme but encouraged discussion of a legitimate issue – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Māori in the Far North – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments did not stray beyond norms of good taste and decency – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-066 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley, discussing the statistic that 20% of New Zealanders admitted to ‘snooping’ on their partners’ devices, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. Following a story about a listener catching her partner cheating using his ‘find my iPhone’, the hosts made brief comments that ‘the gays should run a course’. The complainant considered the segment denigrated people who identify as gay and perpetuated a negative stereotype that gay people are sneaky. In the context, the Authority found the comments were unlikely to encourage different treatment of gay people to their detriment or devalue the reputation of gay people. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-068 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HELEN PATON of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM (AUCKLAND) J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two items covering the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – first item contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court describing his attack – second item included the prosecutor saying the word “fucking” three times – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards Findings13 July item Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of attack given by Mr Weatherston were explicit – item should have been preceded by a warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning – broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item contained explicit details of violence – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld Standard 6 (fairness)…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-062 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GERALD MOONEN of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A promo for South Park contained a "news update" in which police had asked, "If you see this little eight year old boy, kill him and immediately burn his body". The promo was broadcast at 9. 40 pm and 10. 15 pm on TV4 on 5 April 1998. An episode of South Park broadcast on TV4 on 6 April at 9. 30 pm contained fart and diarrhoea jokes. Ms O’Brien complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Limited, that the promo incited violence and murder of children, failed to maintain law and order, failed to observe good taste and decency, and discriminated against a young boy. She also complained that puerile descriptions of faeces and related bodily functions were not comedy, and the episode was in breach of good taste and decency....

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…...

ComplaintRadio Sport – host Doug Golightly – men’s refuges derided as unnecessary for real New Zealanders – only use was for beaten partners of homosexual men – complainant’s email misread – unfair – irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 7 Guideline 7a – high threshold not reached – no uphold Principle 5 – change to email – implication that writer was homosexual – complainant not identified – on balance not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Radio Sport programme on Saturday morning 17 August 2002, hosted by Doug Golightly, included a number of references to men’s refuges. The host questioned their need for "real" New Zealanders, suggesting that only the beaten partners of homosexual men would use them. That attitude was reflected in his comments on some emails he referred to during the broadcast....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-120 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RACHEL MEDUSA of Dunedin Broadcaster RADIO ONE 91 FM Dunedin S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that ACT leader David Seymour MP was bullied and treated unfairly on Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket. Mr Seymour called the show to present his perspective on comments made by Mr Plunket moments earlier about Mr Seymour’s motivation for sponsoring the End of Life Choice Bill. The Authority found that, while Mr Plunket’s interviewing style was robust and challenging, Mr Seymour was not treated unfairly given the nature of the programme, the fact that Mr Seymour initiated the conversation and expressed his views, and Mr Seymour’s position and his experience with the media. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not breach the balance standard as it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, which is required for the balance standard to apply....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

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

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...