Search Rapua

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. ]An item on Newshub reported on the world’s first legally recognised Pastafarian wedding between two members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (CFSM). The reporter referred to the CFSM as a ‘spoof religion’, and stated, ‘Pastafarians believe that pirates are supreme beings from which all humans evolved, and it’s an official religion’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that describing the CFSM as a ‘spoof religion’ was denigrating, disrespectful and discriminatory. It took the view that the broadcaster’s reference to the Church as a ‘spoof religion’ was an opinion which was available to be taken and able to be expressed, and that the high threshold required for discrimination and denigration to be established had not been reached. The Authority also did not uphold a complaint that the reference to pirates as ‘supreme beings’ was inaccurate....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In its Morning Report programme RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. The Authority declined to determine a complaint about this scheduling change, finding it raised matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In its Morning Report programme, RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. [2] John Malcolm complained that this change ‘discriminate[d] against those of us in provincial [New Zealand] who need to be abreast of Māori and rural issues’, because rural New Zealanders listen to the radio at a much earlier time of day and will not necessarily be able to listen to the full Morning Report programme....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the recent death of a woman in Remuera and said her alleged attacker (who had name suppression) had appeared in the Auckland District Court that day. The reporter described the alleged attacker as a ‘24-year-old Pacific Island man’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the alleged attacker’s race was offensive and racist. The Authority acknowledged that the reporter’s commentary, which included racial identification, could be seen as unnecessary given that the ethnicity of the alleged attacker was no longer critical following his arrest. However, the reporter’s description of the man was factual, and the comments did not reach the high threshold for finding that the item encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, Pacific Islanders as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of an American sitcom Dr. Ken, Dr Ken met his wife’s successful former boyfriend, Dr Kevin O’Connell, and was jealous. At the end of the episode, Dr O’Connell was portrayed as being drunk and asking Dr Ken’s staff for a lift home. The three staff all replied in unison, ‘I’ll do it! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the scene normalised rape and portrayed rape against men as a ‘laughing matter’. In the context of a fictional sitcom, which was intended to be humorous, the scene did not carry any level of invective, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Dr....

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....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Travel Guides Australia breached the discrimination and denigration standard by featuring one of the show’s participants stating he grew hair quickly due to his ‘wog genetics’. The Authority noted the word ‘wog’ can have different meanings; typically referring to non-white people in British English and to people with Southern European ancestry in Australian English, and that these constituted recognised sections of the community for the purposes of the standard. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the word, in this particular context (being used by someone of Greek heritage to describe themselves), it did not reach the high threshold of condemnation necessary to find a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary A rugby coach found guilty of sexually assaulting young boys in his rugby club was described on a 3 National News item broadcast on 31 July 1998 as a "homosexual paedophile" and, according to a sports reporter on a 3 News Update item broadcast on 2 August 1998, the Gay Games contained events such as handbag throwing and the 200m dash in high heels. Calum Bennachie complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the description of the rugby coach implied that all paedophiles were homosexual or that all homosexuals were paedophiles, and that both implications were factually incorrect and portrayed gay and lesbian people as inherently inferior. He also complained that the emphasis on fringe events in the report on the Gay Games trivialised the achievements of the competitors....

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…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host described Minister of Health as a chicken and derelict in her duty – offensive and denigrating FindingsPrinciple 1a – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7a – comments acceptable on talkback – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Minister of Health was criticised for not going to Christchurch to try to settle a threatened nurses strike there. The comments were made by the host (Bill Ralston) on the talkback station, Radio Pacific, between 11. 00am–2. 00pm on 30 November 2001. [2] David Stott complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments, which included a description of the Minister as a "woof" and "chicken", were insulting, denigrating and in poor taste. [3] As Mr Stott did not receive a response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter made reference to ‘bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets’ in relation to a photo of a cruise ship. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was inaccurate and in poor taste. While derogatory, it did not reach the threshold for threatening current norms of good taste and decency. The comment was an off-the-cuff remark delivered in a light-hearted tone, without invective, and was obviously intended to be humorous. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter showed an image of a cruise ship anchored in Hawkes Bay, saying: …they’re not disgorging logs; they’re disgorging bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Nine to Noon programme included a segment featuring UK correspondent Dame Ann Leslie. In response to the host’s question ‘What is on your mind this week? ’, Dame Leslie commented on the British Labour Party, its leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Black Lives Matter UK organisation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Dame Leslie’s comments constituted an attack on Mr Corbyn, denigrated the BLM UK activists, and were inaccurate and unbalanced. Mr Corbyn and BLM UK were not treated unfairly, as both could reasonably expect to be subject to robust media scrutiny as a consequence of their public profile. While the item was a current affairs piece to which the balance standard applied, the issues were approached from Dame Leslie’s perspective and listeners would not have expected alternative views to be given....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An audio clip promoting the ZM radio station stated that ZM played ‘hit after hit after goddamn hit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘hit after goddamn hit’ was offensive to those who hold Christian or other religious beliefs and contrary to children’s interests. The Authority acknowledged that use of the term ‘goddamn’ may have caused offence to some listeners. However, in this case it was used as part of the station’s promotional messaging for playing continuous music and was not dwelt upon. Taking into account the right to freedom of expression, and the context of the broadcast, the term ‘goddamn’ could not be said to have encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, all Christians or others who hold religious beliefs....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a talkback segment on Overnight Talk, a caller rang up to discuss Metiria Turei’s resignation as Co-Leader of the Green Party in the wake of benefit and electoral fraud allegations. The caller made the remark that, ‘[i]t’s almost a situation where, the Green Party are in a room and Metiria dropped a big, fat, juicy, smelly fart. ’ A complaint was made that the caller’s comments were demeaning and derogatory towards Ms Turei, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, noting that the discrimination and denigration standard applies only to sections of the community, and it does not apply to individuals....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday Morning contained two items on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa: Counterpoint contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel's arms industry; and an interview with an anti-apartheid activist discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast breached the controversial issues standard, as no alternative perspective was presented either within the broadcast, in any proximate broadcast or in other media. The Authority declined to uphold the remainder of the complaints because: the statements complained of were either expressions of opinion or matters the Authority cannot determine and therefore were not subject to the accuracy standard; the statements did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the programme did not treat any individual or organisation unfairly....