Search Rapua

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court AP46/02 PDF1. 3 MBComplaint20/20 – "Paradise Lost" – item on child prostitution in Fiji – breach of children’s privacy – unfair depiction of child victim – discrimination on account of sex, race and ageFindingsPrivacy – privacy principle (i) – public disclosure of private facts about children – highly offensive and objectionable facts – no public interest defence under privacy principle (vi) – upholdStandard G4 – child sex abuse victim treated unfairly – upholdStandard G13 – high threshold – no upholdCross-referenceDecision No. 1999-125–137OrderBroadcast of statementCosts to complainant of $463. 50This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "Paradise Lost", an item on 20/20, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 15 July 2001....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – priest accidentally removed “Pope’s” head and sewed it back on – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An animated comedy series called Popetown centred around Father Nicholas, an idealistic young priest who lives in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown) with a group of corrupt cardinals and a pogo-stick riding infantile Pope....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of comedy gameshow, Have You Been Paying Attention? , which depicted the President of the United States Donald Trump wearing a capirote (a pointed hood as worn by members of the Ku Klux Klan). The Authority found such confronting symbolism pushed the boundaries of acceptable satire. However, it did not breach the good taste and decency standard, given the importance of freedom of expression and satire as a legitimate form of expression. Mr Trump’s public profile was also a factor. The complainant had not identified any affected section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applied. Nor did the accuracy standard apply as the programme was not news, current affairs or factual programming. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a good taste and decency complaint that the treatment of a clip showing a ‘devastating’ explosion in Lebanon was inappropriate in a segment rounding up ‘all the crazy, messed-up oddities’ of the week. The context and the importance of freedom of expression meant there was no harm justifying regulatory intervention in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency; Discrimination and Denigration...

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....

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

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Believe Nothing – comedy – reference to cannibalism and consuming body and blood of Jesus Christ – allegedly offensive – allegedly discriminated against CatholicismFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – standard not threatened – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6g (discrimination) – context and satirical series – no discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Believe Nothing is a satirical series lampooning aspects of British and Western culture, constructed around the character of Adonis Cnut played by comedian Rick Mayall. The episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 40pm on 11 January 2004 used Hannibal Lechter imagery and involved references to cannibalism and church practices. Complaint [2] Bert Klaassen complained formally to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about aspects of the programme....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-031 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton 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 1989One News – item reported on an Italian television personality who groped David Beckham’s genitals – news presenters commented on the incident – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – while the comments were sexist, they were intended to be humorous and lacked the necessary invective for a breach of the standard – item did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Friday 22 January 2010, reported that David Beckham had his genitals groped by an Italian television personality during a media interview....

ComplaintAlly McBeal – drama – male applicants for law practice required to take off shirts – discrimination against men – sexual harassment in the workplace – inconsistent with maintenance of law and order Findings(1) Standard G13 – no discrimination or denigration – legitimate dramatic work – no uphold (2) Section 4(1)(b) – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Ally McBeal was broadcast on TV2 on 5 July 2000 at 8. 30pm. A sequence in the programme featured two women interviewing male applicants for a position in a legal practice. The applicants were asked to remove their shirts during the interview process. S Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence represented "illegal" sexual harassment of the men involved, and encouraged discrimination against men....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-071 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-014 Dated the 27th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTOPHER S INGRAM of Tauranga Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a spoof of OMC hit song ‘How Bizarre’, in which the singer mimicked the original artist’s accent, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the accent used was an attempt to imitate the distinctive singing voice of Mr Fuemana and sound of ‘How Bizarre’, in the spirit of spoofing the song itself, rather than an attempt to imitate a specifically Māori or Pacific Island English accent. It did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Māori or Pacific Islanders. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about the use of the term ‘holiday highway’ during a 1 News item, to refer to the road between Puhoi and Warkworth, was not upheld. The complainant submitted the term ‘holiday highway’ was ‘Labour Party propaganda’, and that its use minimises the seriousness of the road toll in that area and denigrates people who live in North Auckland or Northland. The Authority noted the term has been widely used in the media for a number of years to refer to the road, including prior to the recent General Election, and found it was not used with the malice or condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration The broadcast[1] An item on 1 News reported on newly announced Government funding for road infrastructure....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

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

A complaint that a radio host asking a caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ breached the discrimination and denigration standard has not been upheld. A broadcast of Afternoons with Andrew Dickens featured a discussion between Mr Dickens and a caller about Māori sovereignty, the Treaty of Waitangi and racism. During the discussion Mr Dickens asked the caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ The Authority found that while the comment was patronising, misinformed and likely to offend some listeners, it did not contain the level of condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and therefore any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...