Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld two complaints that a promo for the ASB Women’s Classic tennis competition was in breach of the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards of the Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The promo depicted a tennis player’s skirt flying up in a brief action shot of her hitting the ball. While acknowledging the potential effect of repeatedly viewing this clip, the Authority found that ultimately the clip was not likely to undermine current norms of good taste and decency and did not contain the high level of condemnation or malice necessary to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The broadcaster provided an explanation for the selection of the clip and the Authority was satisfied that the promo would not cause harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the word ‘cunt’ in the New Zealand crime drama series, One Lane Bridge, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority observed that the standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama and considered that the threshold for its intervention had not been reached. It determined that use of the word, in its context, did not contain the level of malice or nastiness required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and did not amount to hate speech or a sustained attack on women as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LESLIE GEE of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-037 Decision No: 1998-038 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MANU CADDIE of Wellington Broadcaster CHANNEL Z Wellington S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was a breach of broadcasting standards for an expert interviewee to suggest the anti-mask/anti-vaccination movement was behind bomb threats made to several New Zealand schools. The Authority found that while the issue of who was responsible constituted a controversial issue of public importance, the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, so the balance standard was not breached. It also found that anti-mask/anti-vaccination advocates are not groups to which the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints regarding an episode of Shortland Street were not upheld. In the episode a new character appointed CEO of the Shortland Street hospital commented, ‘Puffed up, privileged Pakeha men drunk on control, terrified of change… we are the future, Esther, not them,’ referring to the hospital’s management. Complaints were made that this statement was sexist, racist and offensive to white men. The Authority reviewed the programme and relevant contextual factors, including established expectations of Shortland Street as a long-running, fictional soap opera/drama, and concluded the character’s statement did not breach broadcasting standards. It found upholding the complaints in this context would unreasonably limit the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness The broadcast[1] A Shortland Street episode featured a new CEO, Te Rongopai, starting at Shortland Street hospital....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintRadio Sport – Martin Devlin – Japanese "vile gits" – East Timorese "gooks" – offensive language – racist – denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 1 – talkback context – strong language to be expected – no uphold Principle 7 – reference to East Timorese militia as "gooks" racist and denigratory – upholdOrderCosts of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Japanese were referred to by the host as "vile gits" and "pricks" in the context of their whaling practices on a Radio Sport programme broadcast on 27 September 2000 at about 8. 30am. The host suggested that helicopter gunships should be sent to blow up their whaling boats. Next, a guest contributor on the programme referred to East Timorese militia as "gooks". Doug Richards complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks were offensive and racist....

In an episode of Rugby Nation, commentator Tony Johnson made a reference to Israel Folau using the phrase ‘the F word’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The complainant argued that the broadcast was harmful to Mr and Mrs Folau. However, as two individuals they are not a recognised section of the community as required by the standard. The discrimination and denigration standard therefore did not apply. The Authority declined to imply the good taste and decency or fairness standards into the complaint on the basis that the original complaint did not raise arguments consistent with an alleged breach of those standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – contained interview with a psychologist who discussed different personality types in the workplace – presenter used the term “schizos” before and during the interview – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked necessary invective to reach threshold – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any person or organisation he felt had been treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 22 September 2009, contained an interview with psychologist and employment relations expert Dr Giles Burch. [2] At 7....

SummaryA promo for an episode in the series The Human Body showed a naked pregnant woman and was broadcast on TV One at about 6. 40pm on 17 September. Ms Hutchings of Palmerston North complained that it was disgusting to use that imagery to sell a programme, particularly in the early evening. She pointed out that viewers who might choose not to watch the programme because they found the images offensive were not given a choice about watching the promo because no prior warning was given. In its response, TVNZ maintained that as the image was not prurient it did not breach the good taste standard. It emphasised that pregnancy was part of the natural process of human life which the series traced from conception, through pregnancy and birth to adolescence, adulthood and finally death....

SummaryOn a programme prepared by the NZ Tamil Society and broadcast on Access Radio in Auckland on 11 April 1999, it was announced that Mrs Ramanathan’s nomination to the Executive Committee of the NZ Tamil Society had been rejected. Her nomination would be accepted, the reported added, when she returned some receipt books she had in her possession to the Society’s Treasurer. Mrs Ramanathan complained to Access Community Radio Auckland Inc that the broadcast contained unfounded allegations regarding her honesty and reputation. Access Radio upheld the complaint and arranged for the Tamil Society to broadcast a statement which retracted the allegations and apologised to Mrs Ramanathan . Dissatisfied with the action taken after her complaint had been upheld, Mrs Ramanathan referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintGoing Straight – documentary about curing homosexuals through Christian programme – inaccurate – unbalanced – discrimination against homosexuals Findings(1) Standard G6 – majority – documentary focussed on perspectives of those featured – no uphold (2) Standard G13 – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Going Straight was broadcast on Prime Television on 16 June 2000 at 8. 35pm. The programme was a documentary about gay men who were attempting to change their sexual orientation through a Christian programme run at Caleb House in Kansas. The New Zealand Aids Foundation, through its research director, Tony Hughes, complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced. In its view, an exclusively religious perspective on homosexuality had been presented....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – 4 June report on New Zealander and Viva Palestina aid worker Nicola Enchmarch’s reaction to being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza – 5 June report on New Zealand protest marchers demonstrating against the raid – both items allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items provided a New Zealand perspective on the raid – reports did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact he considered to be inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6…...

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Advertising Standards Complaints Board upheld a complaint about a Levi jeans advertisement – host critical of what he regarded as religious bigotry – socially irresponsible – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 6 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 7 – satire – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Paul Holmes, as the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, was highly critical of religious bigotry which, he contended, was the motivation for some people to complain about a television advertisement for Levi jeans. He expressed the view, by way of comment, in a broadcast shortly before 8. 00am on 27 August 2003. [2] Ross Craig complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments lacked balance, fairness and accuracy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live Drive – host referred to “dirty Germans” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted – was not intended to reflect all Germans – host was expressing disapproval of tourists stealing native wildlife – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment related specifically to the German tourists who had stolen native geckos – did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against German people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Radio Live Drive, broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 4. 20pm on 9 March 2011, the host said: Have you ever thought about stealing a gecko? Why on earth would you steal a gecko?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A presenter on Radio New Zealand Concert introduced a piece of music, saying the composer was ‘considered to be a degenerate in Germany because of his Jewish origins’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the announcer’s comment was in bad taste and denigrated Jewish people. The comment was simply a factual statement giving context to the composer’s work, and was a reference to how he was viewed by the Nazis, not an expression of the presenter’s personal opinion. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] On the morning of 6 September 2013, the presenter of Radio New Zealand Concert introduced a piece of music, as follows: …and now we’ve a fantasy by a composer considered to be a degenerate in Germany because of his Jewish origins....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....