Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes – visual essay on the campaign of Winston Peters MP – suggested supporters were bewildered, bigoted and elderly – unfair FindingsStandard 6, Guideline 6g – elderly as a group not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Aspects of the campaign of the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters MP, during the recent general election were dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 30 July 2002. Mr Peters was shown campaigning while attending meetings and being questioned on radio and television. [2] Brent Morrissey complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item portrayed elderly voters as racist and intolerant of immigrants. That stereotype, he wrote, was incorrect....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Simulcast by broadcasters of the Good Vibrations Carnival at Cooper’s Beach between 1pm and 5pm Saturday 15 April 2006 – carnival organised as community response to Dr Neil Benson’s plan to open a brothel at Cooper’s Beach – broadcast included comments critical of brothel proposal and extracts critical of the proposal from the meeting at Mangonui Town Hall organised to discuss brothel proposal – broadcasts allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsDoubtless Bay Family RadioPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – approach taken in broadcast clearly explained and reasonable opportunities given for other significant points of view – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – Bensons not dealt with unfairly – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – brothel owners not denigrated or discriminated against – not upheldFar…...

Complaint Radio Pacific – talkback host Mark Bennett – critical of appointment of gay or lesbian police liaison officer – comments said to encourage denigration – inaccurate – unfairFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – odious comment – obsolete stereotypes – comparators used displayed illegal behaviour – high threshold for breach not attainedPrinciple 5 and Guideline 5c – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 6 and Guideline 6c – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary[1] The appointment of a gay and lesbian police liaison officer in Hamilton was the subject of critical comment by the host (Mark Bennett) in a broadcast on Radio Pacific talkback. The comments were broadcast at about 3. 15pm on Wednesday 15 October 2003....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a hip hop song contained racial slurs (including the n-word). The Authority noted the broadcaster apologised to the complainant for the offence caused and removed the song from its playlist. The Authority considered this action was sufficient and, in all the circumstances, it was not necessary to determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 13/95 Dated the 9th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN KIRBY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 115/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 47/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IAN RUSH of Gisborne 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: 1996-042 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

An item on 1 News reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. In describing both contenders, the reporter referred to Bridges as an ‘absolute political mongrel’. The complainant stated this reference breached various standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it was inappropriate to describe the Minister as a mongrel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the term had a separate, complimentary, meaning which was clearly intended in this context. The discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-001 Dated the 23rd day January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Ms Loates declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint 20/20 – documentary – mental health outpatient– inaccuracies – lacked balance – discrimination against mental health patients – verbal agreement about interview content Findings(1) Standard G1 – inaccuracies not proven – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided where required through interview with mental health provider – no further imbalance proven – mentally ill not portrayed as inferior – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 20/20 called "Flatmate Wanted" was broadcast on TV3 on 12 September 1999, from 7. 30pm. The item concerned the deaths of Lachlan Jones and Malcolm Beggs and was critical of the mental health system, which it implicated in the deaths....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sean Plunket Morning – host interviewed Dr Paul Connett about his views against fluoridation of water – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial of public interest – period of current interest is ongoing so listeners aware of other views – Dr Connett was given ample opportunity to present his perspective – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interview was robust but reasonable and good-natured – Dr Connett treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community, not individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has declined to determine six complaints about various TVNZ broadcasts, under several standards, as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, issues raised had recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination and/or the standards raised did not relate to the relevant complaint. Two complaints were also trivial. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial; and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on The Project discussing whether nurses who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 should return to the workforce given staff shortages. The complainant stated the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, as well as other standards, as it encouraged division in Aotearoa New Zealand and the presenters’ comments were ‘uncalled for and unfair’. The Authority found the comments reflected the presenters’ opinions and were unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or otherwise undermine widely shared community standards. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...