Search Rapua

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on funding cuts to telephone support service for victims of rape and sexual assault – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on funding cuts to service – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of sexual violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the primary perpetrators of sexual violence and women the victims – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 45/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN BATTYE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

A majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the host of The Chase New Zealand, Paul Henry, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. When a contestant told Henry she would spend any prize money on a trip to the Taj Mahal in India, Henry said ‘You’ve got to be so careful what you eat,’ and that several of his friends had ‘exploded’ in the Taj Mahal, where it is ‘very hard to find a bathroom’. Later in the episode, Henry said, ‘$45,000, Taj Mahal, you can buy a lot of wet wipes with that. ’ The complainant said the comments had the potential to encourage discrimination against India and Indian people, through reinforcing harmful racial stereotypes that India (and, by association, Indian people) are dirty and unhygienic....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview by Kim Hill with former nun and lesbian activist Monica Hingston breached broadcasting standards by including the suggestion that the Catholic Church, and by connection, all Catholics are corrupt. The Authority found that the interview did not contain a high level of condemnation, nor would it undermine community standards of good taste and decency, as it was a nuanced, considered conversation that was narrowly focused on Ms Hingston’s personal views and experiences with the Catholic Church. Taking into account public interest in the interview and the fact that the interview was clearly signalled as being from Ms Hingston’s perspective, the Authority also determined that it did not result in any unfairness to the Catholic Church. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness...

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 1989Sports Tonight – presenter referred to the English netball team as “Poms” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term was affectionate slang rather than abusive – did not carry level of invective necessary to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Sports Tonight, broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 21 October 2009, the presenter referred to the New Zealand netball team beating “the Poms in overtime in a one-off test last week”. Complaint [2] Gary Jordan made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the term “pom” was a racial slur against English people and should not be broadcast. He considered the term to be derogatory and offensive....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Complaints about two broadcasts on Radio Pacific (Mark Bennett talkback) – critical comments by host about Premier House function for actor Sir Ian McKellen – both broadcasts allegedly discriminatory – second broadcast allegedly unbalancedFindings Principle 7, Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments did not encourage discrimination against homosexuals – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in second broadcast – not upheld Broadcasting Act, s. 5(a) – proper procedure for dealing with complaints not followedThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 2 December 2003 at about 3. 30pm, Radio Pacific talkback host Mark Bennett spoke critically about a reception for actor Sir Ian McKellen, which had been held at Premier House....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – hosts Pam Corkery and Paul Henry – interview with RNZ Navy Commander about the help being given to a damaged British destroyer – some questions denigrated the British – unbalanced – unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 – interviewee not harassed – no uphold Principle 5 – no one treated unfairly – no uphold Principle 7 – British navy personnel not denigrated – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The assistance being given by the New Zealand Navy to the British destroyer damaged at Lord Howe Island was the subject of an interview broadcast on Radio Pacific at about 8. 20am on 12 July 2002. Hosts Paul Henry and Pam Corkery interviewed Commander John Campbell of the Royal New Zealand Navy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about Russia’s proposal to use a controlled nuclear explosion to contain an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico – comment from expert from Auckland University – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard primarily concerned with sexual or violent material or coarse language – broadcast not likely to have offended listeners – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – light-hearted discussion – insufficient invective to encourage discrimination against or denigration of Russians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 4....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two hosts on George FM Breakfast asked listeners to send in the names and profiles of female users of Instagram described as ‘do-nothing bitches’. The names of two women, A and B, were submitted. The hosts went on to comment extensively on A’s profile, making inappropriate and disparaging comments about her, and also contacted A and interviewed her on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks having found breaches of the fairness and good taste and decency standards was insufficient, and also found that the broadcast breached the privacy of both women....

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. ]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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-003:Ritchie and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-003 PDF364. 95 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on The AM Show, in which a booth designed to enable doctors to perform discrete testicle examinations was likened to a ‘confession booth’, breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority found that, in the context of the segment, the comparison was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. It also did not reach the level of malice or nastiness necessary to denigrate a section of the community. The public health message in the broadcast was an important one and overall the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a personal anecdote told by Seven Sharp presenter Jeremy Wells, describing the moment ‘Angela D’Audney sat on my desk as a 20-year-old in a leopard-print mini-skirt’. Stumbling over his words, Mr Wells then said, ‘see, it’s got me excited even thinking about it’. The complaint was that Mr Wells: outlined sexually inappropriate conduct against a female coworker; undermined and demeaned his female coworkers; and by saying it on national television, normalised and condoned sexual discrimination in the workplace. The Authority acknowledged Mr Wells’ choice of anecdote was ill-advised and inappropriate and that it may have offended some people. However it emphasised that in itself is not sufficient to find a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration. There is a high threshold for finding a breach, in light of the important right to freedom of expression....

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....

During a segment on The AM Show that discussed immigration to New Zealand host Mark Richardson said: ‘we’re clearly not getting enough English immigrants to become traffic officers’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Richardson’s comment was discriminatory to nationalities that are ‘not English’ in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the complainant did not identify a ‘section of the community’ for the purposes of the standard. The Authority also found that, considering audience expectations of The AM Show and Mr Richardson, the light-hearted nature of the comment and other contextual factors, the comment did not reach the threshold required to be considered discriminatory or denigratory. Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration...