Search Rapua

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the movie Fifty Shades Darker was in breach of standards because it glorified a manipulative and abusive relationship. The Authority found viewers were sufficiently informed about the nature of the content to enable them to manage their own viewing. The movie did not contain any content that would go beyond audience expectations for the classification and timeband, especially given the well-publicised nature of the movie. The movie did not encourage violent or law-breaking activity. Finally, the Authority also found that people who engage in BDSM (a sexual practice that involves the use of physical control, psychological power, or pain) are not a recognised group for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

The Authority has not upheld four complaints about a segment on The AM Show, which featured host Duncan Garner criticising parents who do not vaccinate their children, using terms such as ‘murderers’ and ‘bloody idiots’, and stating they should be ‘stripped of their right to spread their message and their viruses’. The Authority found that, taking into account audience expectations of Mr Garner and The AM Show, alongside other contextual factors, Mr Garner’s comments did not breach broadcasting standards. With regard to the balance standard, the Authority found that, while the anti-vaccination movement was a controversial issue of public importance, Mr Garner’s comments did not amount to a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard, but reflected his own personal views on the issue....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported on a new prenatal test for Down Syndrome. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item discriminated against people with Down Syndrome and was unbalanced because it did not show a situation where identifying a baby with Down Syndrome was viewed positively. Comments suggesting that a low probability of having a baby with Down Syndrome was ‘good news’ were clearly the personal opinions of the interviewees and were not endorsed by the programme. The item itself made no judgement about the test or the outcome of testing in terms of whether a foetus diagnosed as having Down Syndrome was a good or a bad thing. The item was squarely focused on the benefits of the new test in that it was more accurate, and less invasive than other procedures....

Complaint under section 8(1C) 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, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes – however the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – attempt at humour and satire – freedom of expression outweighed potential harm caused – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – guideline 7a provides exemption for humour and satire – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Leighton Smith Show, presenter Leighton Smith, in relation to a headline regarding Pope Francis’ warning to then President-elect Donald Trump, ‘do not back away from UN climate pact’, said, ‘I don’t want to offend, certainly not insult, any Catholics listening, but how did you end up with this tosser? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment was derogatory, crude and demeaning. Mr Smith was entitled to express his opinion on the Pope’s stance on climate change and while his comment was considered offensive by the complainant, in the context of a talkback radio show, the Authority did not consider it undermined current norms of good taste and decency....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about a Newshub item in which the presenter commented, ‘And I thought the only reason we watch Aussie Rules [AFL] was for the short shorts’, has not been upheld by the Authority. The Authority found that the comment, while inappropriate, did not reach the threshold to be considered a serious violation of community norms of good taste and decency. The Authority acknowledged the importance of contextual factors in considering whether the standards have been breached, including the nature of Newshub as an unclassified news programme and audience expectations of the broadcast. The Authority recognised that the statement was not made with malice or nastiness and found the comment did not breach the discrimination and denigration, balance or fairness standards....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Seven Sharp in which Hilary Barry made comments about the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and about ‘anti-vaxxers’, including suggesting those who do not want to be vaccinated could ‘jump on a ferry and go to the Auckland Islands for a few years, and then when we’ve got rid of COVID-19…come back’. The complaint alleged these comments breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards, by suggesting the safety of the vaccine was almost without question, and denigrating those with a different view. The Authority found Ms Barry’s comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. It found the broadcast did not address a controversial issue so the balance standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, which discussed a draft film script for the proposed film They Are Us, based on events surrounding the Christchurch terror attack on 15 March 2019. The complainant considered comments made during the broadcast, such as that the script was ‘a misleading and dishonest Americanisation of what happened in this country’ were derogatory towards Americans, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to breach the standard and justify restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News item looking at the housing crisis on Waiheke Island. One affected resident who was interviewed said he ‘[felt] like a gypsy wandering around, living out of suitcases and boxes’. The complaint was that the use of the word ‘gypsy’ was derogatory and evokes prejudicial biases towards the Roma community. While the Authority has previously acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the word, in this particular context it did not outweigh the interviewee’s right to express himself and describe his experience. This expression and the item as a whole carried high value and public interest and did not warrant regulatory intervention or restricting the important right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-075 Dated the 18th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KNIGHTS OF THE SOUTHERN CROSS Napier Branch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary The film Primal Fear was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 July 1999. It concerned the trial of a young man accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop. Aaron Authier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film was an attack on Christianity. He said he objected to the blasphemous language used and the manner in which Catholic clergy had been represented in the film. In his view, it should have been preceded with a warning about its content. TVNZ responded by noting that the film was classified as AO and was screened during AO time. Furthermore, it was preceded by a warning which emphasised that it was intended for adult audiences. To the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and misrepresented the clergy, TVNZ responded by reminding the complainant that the film was a work of fiction....

Dated: 6 July 2010 Decision No:  2010-001 Complainants GILLIAN ASHURST of Canterbury MARIAN DEAN of Whanganui DR NANCY HIGGINS of Waikouaiti JANET HUTCHINSON of Hastings PETER LOVE of Featherston KAREN MCCONNOCHIE  of Auckland ROBERT PARAMO of Wellington PEOPLE FIRST NEW ZEALAND INC of Wellington MARK SHANKS of Kaitaia TREVOR SHASKEY of Gisborne G SNEATH of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD broadcasting as TV One                                   Members Peter Radich, Chair Tapu Misa Mary Anne Shanahan Leigh Pearson...