Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – segment was an attempt at humour and satire – the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context, was not socially irresponsible, and did not reach high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-030:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-030 PDF652. 8 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-103:Thompson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-103 PDF343. 63 KB...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-034:Creighton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-034 PDF713. 18 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3 News: Firstline reported on the Westminster Dog Show. In response to a question whether there was a Pit Bull division in the competition, one of the presenters commented, ‘I highly doubt it. Imagine what their owners would look like. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was highly offensive to, and denigrated, Pit Bull owners. Pit Bull owners are not a section of the community, and the comment was clearly an off-the-cuff, light-hearted joke delivered without invective. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] 3 News: Firstline contained a pre-recorded item on the Westminster Dog Show, broadcast on 12 February 2014 on TV3. Following the item, the presenters commented: Presenter 1: Do you think they have a Pit Bull division to these competitions? Presenter 2: I highly doubt it....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Good Morning the presenter interviewed two recently eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the presenters referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, as these words did not feature in the broadcast. Declined to Determine: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A presenter on Good Morning interviewed two eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand, while they cooked a dish. The programme was broadcast on TV ONE on 17 April 2014. [2] Shane Moore complained that the programme breached the discrimination and denigration standard because the presenter referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, and attacked ‘mentally disabled people’. [3] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – Larry Williams Breakfast Show – three-way discussion between host and two guests about Tuvaluan overstayer recently convicted of assaulting his wife for second time – guest made comment purporting to justify violence against women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency – allegedly denigratory of women Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – in context, no obscene language or content – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – Guideline 7a (denigration) – taken in isolation comments offensive – but in context, comments clearly not meant to be taken at face value – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported on Pike River Inquiry and new evidence that manager at the mine sent emails about a new job minutes after the explosion – reporter quoted a miner’s mother who had called out, “This is while my boy was dying! Jesus Christ!...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Politically Incorrect Guide to Teenagers – host commented that teenagers were “mental”, “mad”, “not right in the head” – showed sketch of “Mad Uncle Jack” who had been released from psychiatric facility – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content subject to complaint intended to be humorous and educational rather than offensive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments were host’s personal opinion with regard to teenage behaviour – he was not making a comment on people with mental illness as a section of the community – comments did not contain invective necessary to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-060:Kirby and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-060 PDF490. 32 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints about two episodes from the second season of British dating game show, Naked Attraction, broadcast on TVNZ 2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 27 July 2018 and Friday 3 August 2018. During each episode, a clothed individual selected a date from six naked individuals, who were gradually revealed in stages from the feet up, with no blurring or pixelation of nudity. The complaints alleged these episodes of Naked Attraction contained a high level of full-frontal nudity and sexual discussion, which was offensive and contrary to standards of good taste and decency. The complainants also submitted that the programme was degrading and breached the privacy of the participants....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Worldwatch broadcast a three-part interview series with Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator, described as ‘one of the most powerful women in the Middle East’ and ‘a forceful advocate for Palestinian self-determination and peace in the Middle East’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the interviews amounted to support for terrorism, ‘[s]olely blame[d] Israel for all the Palestinian suffering’, and contained a number of inaccurate and misleading allegations about the Israel-Palestine conflict. The interviews did not contain several of the statements complained about, but were rather the complainant’s interpretation of what he considered Ms Ashrawi had implied. Other comments complained about were clearly Ms Ashwari’s opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply....

In an episode of Mai Home Run, one of the radio presenters related a story about accidentally taking and not returning a bag containing items, including a gaming console, belonging to Lil’ Romeo. The presenter also disclosed the name of one of the people involved in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached the privacy standard, finding that the named individual was identifiable and would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information disclosed. The Authority also found the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, as it had the potential to significantly damage the named person’s reputation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the law and order standard, finding that in context the broadcast did not encourage or actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

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....