Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...

SummaryWWF Raw and WWF Summerslam were broadcast consecutively on TV4 on 11 September 1999, from 8. 30pm to12. 00am. These programmes featured professional wrestling bouts which had been staged in front of live audiences. Mr Bridgman, Ms Crombie, Mr Little and Mr Bonner complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that aspects of the behaviour shown in the programmes breached programme standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination against women, and the effect of programmes on children and violence. TV3 explained that the "fights" in the programmes were choreographed, not real. It described the WWF shows as "neither sport nor drama but a kind of pageant" which it compared to a magic show. TV3 rejected every aspect of the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, the complainants referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – featured a story on the experience of a tenant whose family allegedly suffered health problems as a result of living on a property that contained traces of methamphetamine – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that the house was formerly used to manufacture methamphetamine – overstated evidence, for example by reference to the “house” and “home” as opposed to just the garage, and by creating impression a ‘P’ lab had existed when the contamination was marginal and could have been caused by smoking – failed to outline the parameters of the FISL report or make any reference to NZDDA report which found no trace of methamphetamine – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld Standard 6…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Show – guest host read out text message which used the phrase “pre-op tranny” – phrase repeated by a listener who called the show – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard – broadcaster upheld the complaint under Standard 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient considering the nature of the breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-079:Disabled Persons Assembly (New Zealand) Inc (Auckland Central Region) and Television New Zealand - 1993-079 PDF301. 22 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints regarding an interview of American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler by Kim Hill. The interview discussed ‘the debate about who can be classified as a woman’ and used the term ‘TERF’, an acronym meaning trans exclusionary radical feminist, to describe those ‘who oppose transgender as a phenomenon and transgender rights more broadly’, particularly through excluding trans people from women-only spaces. The Authority found the broadcast was not discriminatory towards women and the term ‘TERF’ was used as part of a discussion of the debate and the expression of legitimately held opinion. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment referring to a sex act during an episode of New Zealand Today, which the host and interviewee both laughed at. The programme was classified 16-LSC, preceded by a full-screen warning and screened at 9pm. Given audience expectations for the programme, the classification, the warning and the scheduling, the Authority found the comment would not cause widespread undue offence and audiences were able to make their own viewing choices. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Discrimination and Denigration...

ComplaintVoice of Islam – comments about homosexuality and AIDS – discrimination/denigration – incited hatred, intolerance and violence toward homosexualsFindingsStandard 6 and Guideline 6g – hate speech – encouraged discrimination and denigration – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] A lecture titled “Challenges Facing Muslims in the New Millennium” was broadcast on Voice of Islam on Triangle Television between 3. 00pm and 4. 00pm on Monday 29 September 2003. [2] Mr Clayton complained to Triangle Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme included comments which incited hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals. [3] Triangle Television maintained that broadcasting standards were not breached, as Standard 6 of the Television Code allowed for the broadcast of “genuinely held opinion”. [4] Dissatisfied with Triangle Television's decision, Mr Clayton referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintOne News – Australian Governor-General – alleged cover-up of sexual abuse – Merepeka Raukawa-Tait interviewed – suggested Australians were hypocritical as their silence may have contributed to abuse – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – item balanced about matter of Governor-General’s tenure – no uphold Standard 5 – item accurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no evidence of denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Controversy over the allegations that the Australian Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, had covered up sex abuse cases when Archbishop of Brisbane was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 22 February 2002. The Chief Executive of Women’s Refuge in New Zealand, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, when interviewed, suggested that the criticism directed at Dr Hollingworth was hypocritical....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 93/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GERRY BRENNAN of New Plymouth Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 160/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALICIA LEE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Cruise FM – host interviewed a member of the local district council and made comments that were critical of, and threatening towards, other council members – host also made comments about a rival radio station and, by implication, a staff member there – news item made claims about Deputy Mayor – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host made comments that were personally abusive and threatening – Mayor Neil Sinclair, Deputy Mayor Jenny Shattock, named councillor, Classic Hits and its staff treated unfairly – host’s comments about other council members and staff were brief, general criticisms mainly related to professional capacity and as such they were not treated unfairly – host abused his position by using the airwaves to discredit council members and staff at…...

ComplaintOne News – item about gender income differences – unbalanced – inaccurate – denigration and discrimination of male employers FindingsStandard 4 – range of perspectives presented – no uphold Standard 5 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to male employers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A One News programme, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 20 June 2002, featured an item which sought to explain census figures which showed that women were earning less than their male counterparts. [2] Peter Zohrab, on behalf of the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the news item was unbalanced, inaccurate, and encouraged denigration and discrimination against male employers....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Classic Hits – Bunty’s Big Drive Home – anecdote about white South African’s racist views towards black South African – complainant alleged anecdote was offensive to South Africans as it portrayed them as racists – complaint upheld by broadcaster as a breach of Guideline 7a (denigration) – complainant dissatisfied as believed no apology was madeFindingsPrinciple 7 (denigration) – apology sufficient – further action unnecessary – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Mental Berocca, broadcast on Classic Hits at around 5. 30pm on 15 February 2005, contained an anecdote about a white South African woman who was upset to be sitting next to a black South African man on a plane. In the anecdote, the woman referred to the man as a “kaffir”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Coast radio station – broadcast of song entitled “Puha and Pākehā” – allegedly encouraged denigration of PākehāFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (denigration) – clearly humorous – not denigratory of Pākehā – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At around 5. 15pm on 5 October 2004, Coast radio station in Auckland broadcast a song entitled “Puha and Pākehā”, recorded by Rod Derrett in the 1960s. [2] The song was a light-hearted tale of Pākehā in early New Zealand being eaten by Māori, and included the following lyrics: I don’t give a hangi for the Treaty of Waitangi, You can’t get fat on that – give me some Puha and Pākehā....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Solid Gold FM breakfast show – host told joke about an Indian person who is greeted at the gates of heaven by an angel who shouts “Jesus, your taxi’s here” – complainant felt joke dehumanised Indian people and was racist – allegedly in breach of social responsibility standardFindingsPrinciple 7 and guideline 7a – joke did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Indian people – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On the morning of 27 March 2006, the host of the Solid Gold FM breakfast show made the following joke after saying “I think it’s funny, I hope it doesn’t offend you”: [2] An Indian goes up to heaven, and the angel at the gates says “Yes, what do you want? ”, and the Indian says “I’m here for Jesus!...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the conviction and sentencing of a New Zealand woman, A, for the murder of her 20-year-old severely autistic and intellectually disabled daughter, B. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item ‘sympathised with the murderer over the victim’ and ‘morally absolved [A]’. The broadcast was a factual news item which reported on the outcome of criminal proceedings involving A, and largely reflected the Judge’s statements at sentencing. It was focused on the circumstances of A’s particular case and did not contain a discussion of the wider issues of violence against disabled people or family violence, and therefore did not require balancing perspectives on these issues....