Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-041:Zohrab and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-041 PDF273. 25 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, the host Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller, the complainant, who went by the name of ‘Alex’. He said ‘back in 17-something… I’d meet him on the beach as the sun came up and I’d potentially kill him or let him kill me in a duel’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host had made a ‘veiled death threat’ against the complainant. It was clear the host was not making a serious death threat, but was using provocative, metaphorical language to express his strong views about the complainant. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller who went by the name of ‘Alex’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that an episode of Jeremy Kyle, a talk show dealing with relationship breakdowns between guests, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant’s objections related to the nature of the series in general, rather than specific content in this episode. While elements could have caused discomfort or distress for viewers, the episode was consistent with audience expectations of the talk show genre, was rated PGR and was broadcast at a time when AO programmes are permitted, during the school term, so children were unlikely to be watching....

An item on 1 News reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. In describing both contenders, the reporter referred to Bridges as an ‘absolute political mongrel’. The complainant stated this reference breached various standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it was inappropriate to describe the Minister as a mongrel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the term had a separate, complimentary, meaning which was clearly intended in this context. The discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

SummarySome of the children's programmes screened on Channel 2 over a four day periodbetween 25 and 28 June included Sonic the Hedgehog, Captain N, Swat Cats, KingArthur and the Knights of Justice, James Bond Junior and Mighty Morphin PowerRangers. Ms Bannatyne complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that theseprogrammes were unsuitable for children under 8 years of age because they relied onviolence for their main themes and contained inappropriate language. She suggestedthat such programmes offered poor role models for children and were generally of apoor quality with trite, trivial story lines. She requested that they be discontinued. In response, TVNZ advised that none of the programmes was in breach of anybroadcasting standards and, further, that many of them provided entertaining andstimulating viewing for young minds....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 102/95 Decision No: 103/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEDIAWOMEN of Wellington and LINDA McDOUGALL of London Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two items on 1 News concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine breached the balance, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards. The first item reported on possible war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine, and the second on New Zealand providing further financial and military aid to Ukraine. The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the items, and the accuracy standard was not breached. While the complainant was concerned the broadcasts discriminated against Russian people, the Authority found the broadcasts did not refer to Russian people generally, and rather referred to the Russian government or its military. The fairness standard did not apply. Not upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

A complaint that a radio host asking a caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ breached the discrimination and denigration standard has not been upheld. A broadcast of Afternoons with Andrew Dickens featured a discussion between Mr Dickens and a caller about Māori sovereignty, the Treaty of Waitangi and racism. During the discussion Mr Dickens asked the caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ The Authority found that while the comment was patronising, misinformed and likely to offend some listeners, it did not contain the level of condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and therefore any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

In a segment on the Mike Hosking Breakfast programme, the host interviewed the Prime Minister about the Government’s decision to extend the Level 3 lockdown restrictions on Auckland in August 2020. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It recognised the value of robust political discourse in the media and the role of media in holding to account those in positions of power. Overall, it found no harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. While some may have found Mr Hosking’s approach and comments distasteful, they did not go beyond what could be expected of an interview of this nature. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards about an item on Morning Report. The Authority did not consider referencing the iwi affiliation of the subjects featured in the piece discriminated against or denigrated other New Zealanders stuck in India due to COVID-19 who are not tangata whenua. It also found the complaint did not identify a particular individual or organisation that was alleged to have been treated unfairly in the broadcast, so the fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration and Fairness...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contestant told a story about punching a boy at school who had Down syndrome – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked necessary invective – attempt at humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme 7 Days was broadcast on TV3 at 10pm on Friday 27 November 2009. The programme involved the host questioning two three-person teams of comedians about various events which had been reported in the media during the week. [2] During the programme, the panellists discussed an event that had occurred in America called “Kick a Ginger Day”....

Complaint3 News – comment by newsreader – offensive behaviour – mockery of middle-aged women Findings(1) Standard G2 – insufficiently offensive – no uphold (2) Standard G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A newsreader read an item on 3 News about a group of middle-aged English women who had raised money for charity by posing nude for a calendar, during which he commented "I bet that’s all they raised". The item was broadcast on TV3 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm on 26 March 2000. Jenny Rockel complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the newsreader had given the impression that the idea of women’s sexual viability in middle life was laughable. She considered that this was offensive and tasteless. In its response, TV3 said that the remark was unscripted and intended by the newsreader to be amusing....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – host spoke to a number of women about their experiences with dowry abuse in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – highlighted problem of dowry abuse and presented experiences of a few women – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccurate statements – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify any group or section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Crowd Goes Wild – host made comments about acclimatising to conditions in India leading up to the Commonwealth Games – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comments related to conditions in India – comments did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Indian people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of The Crowd Goes Wild, broadcast on Prime at 7pm on 14 September 2010, an item reported on the Samoan Rugby Sevens team’s training in preparation for the Commonwealth Games in India. Following the item, one of the hosts, Mark Richardson, said to his co-host Andrew Mulligan: I think that’s wonderful, you know, trying to acclimatise by training in the heat....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic – interviewee and reporter used the term “nutters” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – “nutters” used to refer to person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – viewers would have understood intended meaning of “nutters” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....