Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 3 News item reported on allegations of widespread doping amongst Russian athletes and included a reference to the disqualification of a Belarussian shot-putter at the London Olympics. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the item was misleading, unbalanced and denigrated Russians by failing to differentiate between Belarus and Russia. The reporter accurately described the Belarussian athlete and the Russian Olympic team, and in the context of the item viewers would not have been misled into thinking Belarus and Russia were the same country. The item portrayed a range of significant viewpoints on the allegations of doping amongst Russian Olympic athletes and did not contain any material which discriminated against, or denigrated, Russians. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A 3 News item reported on allegations of widespread doping amongst Russian athletes....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 74/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NOBILANGELO CERAMALUS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings (1) 5 August broadcast – no uphold(2) 6 August broadcast – no uphold (3) 7 August broadcast – no uphold (4) 10 August broadcast – reference to wanking unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold (5) 11 August broadcast – discussion with child character about pornography – unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold(6) 21 August broadcast – gratuitous use of "fuck" – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7b – unsuitable for children – uphold; discussion about plasticine penis – no uphold; mocking of homosexuals – Principle 1 – uphold;…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with Larry Baldock about the citizens-initiated referendum on smacking – host asked the interviewee a question nine times challenging him to give an answer – host interrupted interviewee on several occasions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – host played the role of devil’s advocate – significant points of view presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee was robustly challenged and given an adequate opportunity to express his views – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host made comments about television personality who hosted Anzac Day programme on Māori Television – said she would have been paid “$25,000 or thereabouts” – questioned whether she would have “been allowed to take that lovely piece of greenstone home with her” – host also called Māori Television “disgusting apartheid TV station” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly speculation – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not a “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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback regarding Fiji’s involvement in Pacific Islands Forum – made comment “you ungrateful swine” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comment directed at Fijian leaders – not a section of the community to which standard applied – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on the morning of 5 August 2010, two MPs were invited onto the programme to discuss New Zealand’s involvement in the Pacific Islands Forum; a topical issue because the 41st leaders meeting was at that time being held in Vanuatu....

Summary A documentary about cigarette smoking in New Zealand called "Up in Smoke" was broadcast on Assignment on TV One, between 8. 30pm and 9. 30pm on 23 September 1999. The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Limited ("Tobacco Institute") complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in numerous ways. The Tobacco Institute also complained that the programme portrayed tobacco company executives and Maori women in a way which was likely to encourage discrimination against them. TVNZ responded that the programme was not unbalanced or unfair to the tobacco industry. In its view, the programme surveyed a broad range of relevant views about smoking, and included a tobacco industry perspective. TVNZ also disagreed that it had breached broadcasting standards relating to discrimination. TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During his talkback show, host Leighton Smith in a conversation with a caller about the impact of cultural and religious beliefs on others, asked, ‘How do you think the Muslims will fit into that? ’ He then repeated the question as, ‘How do you think the beheaders will fit into that? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promoted anti-Islamic sentiment and was extremely offensive. While the comment was objectionable, it was relatively brief and not repeated, and did not reach the high threshold necessary to constitute hate speech or encourage discrimination or denigration. Mr Smith was also apparently questioned about the comment by the programme producer and he attempted to explain what he meant....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the show’s hosts asked callers to submit a ‘corny joke’. A caller submitted the following joke: ‘What’s the hardest part about cooking a vegetable? Trying to fit the wheelchair in the pot. ’ Before the caller delivered the punchline, one of the hosts (who believed he knew the joke), asked his co-hosts to switch off their microphones so they could discuss it. The hosts also spoke to their producer, asking whether it was appropriate to air the punchline to the joke. After some deliberation, they decided to allow the joke to be broadcast. The hosts reacted to the punchline by saying, ‘No! No! That’s a terrible joke! ’ and ‘That’s not a joke! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment was in poor taste and discriminatory....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The AM Show, host Duncan Garner and then Newshub political editor Patrick Gower discussed various policies the new Labour Government was considering implementing, as well as legislation it planned to change or repeal. Discussing the ‘three strikes’ law, Mr Gower referred to one of the complainants, Mr Garrett, who was involved in introducing the law, and stated, ‘turned out that he had been stealing dead babies’ identities himself before he came into Parliament’. Mr Garner later clarified that it was ‘one dead baby’. The Authority upheld three complaints that the segment was inaccurate and unfair to Mr Garrett. While the broadcaster acknowledged the statement was inaccurate, the Authority found Mr Garner’s correction was dismissive and perfunctory, and insufficient to correct the error....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in? ’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-146 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAEME ANDREWS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary An episode of Dharma and Greg was broadcast on TV2 on 14 October 1998 between 7. 30-8. 00pm. A male character described two women as "deaf Cockney humpbacks". Mr Kirkland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the portrayal of deaf people in the programme was discriminatory and paternalistic, and perpetuated a stereotypical view about deaf people being stupid. He sought an apology from the broadcaster. TVNZ pointed out that this was a comedy programme in which the two characters regularly assumed character roles. In this case one decided to be a humpback who was hard of hearing while the other adopted a Cockney accent. A male character said to them "Hello deaf Cockney humpbacks". TVNZ said it found nothing in this exchange which suggested that deaf people were intellectually limited, nor anything that would encourage discrimination against deaf people....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-118 Dated the 19th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J D�ERRICO of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – discussion about proposed changes to adoption laws to allow homosexual couples to adopt – host said he was “iffy” about the changes and that homosexuality was “unnatural” – co-host and some viewers disagreed with his views – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comments were provocative but encouraged debate – host’s views were countered by co-host and viewer feedback – tone was not sufficiently malicious to encourage discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

SummaryAccording to the complainant, a Radio Pacific talkback host said "Maori is not a culture" between 6. 00 and 8. 00am on 1 September 1999. Stephen Cotterall said that he complained to Radio Pacific, a division of The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment made by the announcer was racially derogatory and insulting to the tangata whenua. As the broadcaster failed to respond to Mr Cotterall’s complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. When the matter was referred to The RadioWorks, it advised that it had not received Mr Cotterall’s letter of complaint. Nevertheless, it then proceeded to deal with the complaint. The broadcaster advised that the announcer’s comment was a genuine expression of opinion, and it declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – comment included a statement that the Green Party was the party of square dancers – complainant objected to square dancers being associated with the Green Party – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated square dancersFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant to complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – square dancers not a “section of the community” to which the guideline applies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 6 June 2006 at approximately 7....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast contained inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced information and breached the privacy of Trunk Property's director. The item was materially accurate, was not unfair to Trunk Property or its director and did not breach the director's privacy. Trunk Property was given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the story and its response was fairly presented in the item. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming Introduction [1] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...