Search Rapua

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....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 4/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AMBLA (AUSTRALASIAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with Larry Baldock about the citizens-initiated referendum on smacking – host asked the interviewee a question nine times challenging him to give an answer – host interrupted interviewee on several occasions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – host played the role of devil’s advocate – significant points of view presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee was robustly challenged and given an adequate opportunity to express his views – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes’ Breakfast Show – commentary on Ariel Sharon’s visit to Temple Mount – commentary on Middle East situation – unbalanced – inaccurate – socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 4 – editorial piece – other significant points of view presented in period of current interest – no uphold Principle 6 – clearly presenter’s opinion – comments not presented as fact – no uphold Principle 7 – not denigratory to extent envisaged by principle – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary In an item on Paul Holmes’ Breakfast Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 16 October 2000, the presenter commented on the Middle East situation. The presenter described Mr Ariel Sharon as a "dreadful beast" and as "mad, cynical [and] Arab-hating....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item used the word “gay” in the context of reporting on influx of homosexual couples from Australia getting married in New Zealand as civil unions are not legally recognised in Australia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – “gay” is a commonly accepted and widely used term for homosexuals – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 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 Australian Open Tennis Championships – reporter commented with regard to Serena Williams’ performance, “The American was almost schizophrenic – she hit four double faults in one game, as well as an ace” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration, and accuracy standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “schizophrenic” was used colloquially as an adjective to describe Ms Williams’ sporting performance – comment did not carry any invective or malice – use of the term did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of term “schizophrenic” was not a statement of fact – amounted to commentary and was therefore exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Show – guest host read out text message which used the phrase “pre-op tranny” – phrase repeated by a listener who called the show – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard – broadcaster upheld the complaint under Standard 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient considering the nature of the breach – 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 & Dom Show – contained discussion about a controversial tweet by one of the hosts in which he said, “Girls rapping....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-001:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-001 PDF (374. 35 KB)...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-054:Young and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-054 PDF399. 53 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp screened footage of an incident involving celebrity singer Beyoncé’s sister physically attacking Beyoncé’s husband in a lift. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item made light of the serious issue of violence or denigrated men. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence. Introduction[1] Seven Sharp screened footage of an incident involving Beyoncé’s sister physically attacking Beyoncé’s husband in a lift, that had attracted the attention of media worldwide. It was broadcast at 7pm on TV ONE on 13 May 2014. [2] Wayne Burrows complained that the hosts ‘made light of this serious issue laughing and joking about the violence’. He said that by laughing the presenters glamorised the violent behaviour, and because the violence was by a woman against a man, the laughter denigrated men....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Talkback radio host Sean Plunket reacted to author Eleanor Catton's comments at a literary festival in India, which were negative about the New Zealand government. He was highly critical of Ms Catton, saying that she was a 'traitor' and an 'ungrateful hua' among other things. The Authority did not uphold complaints that Mr Plunket's comments breached broadcasting standards. The nature of Ms Catton's remarks was such that it was reasonable for them to attract some strong views in response. The host's comments were within the bounds of audience expectations of talkback radio and within the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story reported that Auckland purchasers of homes near areas of cultural significance for Māori may need to get consent from iwi before undertaking any structural building work, as part of the Auckland Unitary Plan. As an example of one of the areas of cultural significance, the presenter reported from an empty field, saying, ‘So this is what an area of cultural significance looks like. This is called a midden. . . it’s pretty much a rubbish dump. We looked it up – “midden” is an old Danish word for “domestic rubbish dump”’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item discriminated against and/or denigrated Māori and was unfair....

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 the introduction for a piece broadcast on RNZ Concert: ‘Being a coloured man wasn’t an advantage to 19th century English composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor. But he did, fortunately, have some influential supporters… so his music did get heard. ’ The complaint was that the description of the composer as ‘coloured’ perpetuated racism. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns and the changing nature of language over time. In this case, it found the description of the composer, in the context of the broadcast, did not encourage discrimination or denigration and was unlikely to cause offence at a level justifying restriction of the right to freedom of expression.   Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...