Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-034 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK EDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-052 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-170 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUGLAS JENKIN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryOn a programme prepared by the NZ Tamil Society and broadcast on Access Radio in Auckland on 11 April 1999, it was announced that Mrs Ramanathan’s nomination to the Executive Committee of the NZ Tamil Society had been rejected. Her nomination would be accepted, the reported added, when she returned some receipt books she had in her possession to the Society’s Treasurer. Mrs Ramanathan complained to Access Community Radio Auckland Inc that the broadcast contained unfounded allegations regarding her honesty and reputation. Access Radio upheld the complaint and arranged for the Tamil Society to broadcast a statement which retracted the allegations and apologised to Mrs Ramanathan . Dissatisfied with the action taken after her complaint had been upheld, Mrs Ramanathan referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport Farming Show – host referred to man as a “pommy git” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – word “pommy” unlikely to offend, insult or intimidate – expression “pommy git” not derogatory – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a brief interview on the Radio Sport Farming Show, broadcast at 6. 50am on Saturday 31 October 2009, the host asked the interviewee: Don, should the New Zealand farmers be fearing a bloke, a pommy git by the name of Lord Steyn? [2] The interviewee explained that Lord Johan Steyn had been advocating vegetarianism and the discontinuance of farming livestock as methods to battle greenhouse gas emissions....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – news reader stated that Samoan prison guards had been charged with bringing contraband into Auckland prisons – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – news reader’s remark was factual – no invective – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Samoans – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Monday 6 December 2010, the news reader stated: Two Samoan prison guards have been arrested and stood down from their positions after being charged with bringing contraband into two Auckland jails. The men are accused of bringing in drugs, cell phones, cigarettes and food for prisoners at Mt Eden and Auckland Central Remand prisons....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on saving fuel costs – contained a number statements about hybrid cars, including the following comment which referred to the Toyota Prius, “The bottom line is that the British Consumer’s Institute just did a comparison between a diesel car and a hybrid car and found that the diesel car was in fact more efficient....

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....

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. ]A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence in Christchurch following the earthquakes. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that re-enactments showing domestic violence denigrated men and were ‘gender biased’. The Authority has previously declined to uphold a similar complaint from the complainant, which ought to have put him notice of the likely outcome of this decision. The re-enactments were visual wallpaper only, and the gender of the actors was not material. Declined to determine: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction[1] A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence over the Christmas period in Christchurch, observed in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes. The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 20 December 2013....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine three complaints about different programmes broadcast on TVNZ channels on 4 July 2022 as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, and other issues raised have recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive & Disturbing Content; Discrimination & Denigration...

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 did not uphold a complaint that comments during a documentary on New Zealand’s involvement in the World War I military campaign in Gallipoli breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, one of the presenters was shown a photograph of a woman behind bars, in the context of a conversation about prostitutes being available for troops stationed in Egypt. The presenter then made a derogatory comment about the appearance of the woman. The complainant submitted the comments made in the broadcast denigrated both women and sex workers. The Authority acknowledged that the comment regarding the woman’s appearance in particular, which also diminished the seriousness of some women’s experiences in World War I, was insensitive and unnecessary, and would be considered sexist and offensive to some viewers....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard....