Search Rapua

ComplaintLeighton Smith Morning Show – talkback host described protest group as a pack of mongrels – encouraged discrimination and offensive language FindingsPrinciple 7 guideline 7a – does not meet high threshold required for discrimination – no uphold Principle 1 – dismissive and insulting – uphold OrderBroadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Protesters outside a school in Hamilton were described by the host of the Leighton Smith Morning Show as "mongrels" and "a pack of mongrels". The programme is broadcast on weekdays on Newstalk ZB, and the comments complained about were made shortly before 10. 00am on 15 November 2001. [2] Wayne Smith complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster, that the tone and the manner of the remarks encouraged discrimination against Maori. He later complained that the comments breached the standard requiring good taste and decency....

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. ]Radio Tarana reported on the Sanil Kumar Medical Fund, which had been set up for the treatment of a young Fijian-Indian man in New Zealand who had subsequently been deported to Fiji and died. There were allegations by the immediate family of Mr Kumar and others that the fund was being misused by its directors. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcasts were unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, denigrating and caused panic among the public. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide balance and fairness, no inaccuracies could be identified, the discrimination and denigration standard was not applicable and the broadcasts were not presented irresponsibly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on the experience and fears of one woman dealing with her mentally-ill ex-husband – woman described her ex-husband as dangerous – dealt with failures of the mental health system – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – woman gave her opinions about her husband, did not make statements of fact about people with bipolar disorder in general – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, people with bipolar disorder or mental illness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live Drive – host referred to “dirty Germans” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted – was not intended to reflect all Germans – host was expressing disapproval of tourists stealing native wildlife – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment related specifically to the German tourists who had stolen native geckos – did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against German people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Radio Live Drive, broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 4. 20pm on 9 March 2011, the host said: Have you ever thought about stealing a gecko? Why on earth would you steal a gecko?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Shortland Street featured a storyline about the developing relationship of a young same-sex couple, and included several scenes of the two kissing, including shots of them from the waist up in bed together. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these scenes breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority acknowledged there is value in programmes such as Shortland Street, which provides entertainment and reflects contemporary society and evolving social issues and attitudes. Shortland Street is a PGR-classified medical drama series that has screened in the 7pm timeband for many years. It is well known for featuring adult themes. In that context the level of sexual content did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, nor would be likely to adversely affect any child viewers....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-086:Paton-Simpson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-086 PDF458. 1 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-034:Creighton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-034 PDF713. 18 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday Morning contained two items on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa: Counterpoint contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel's arms industry; and an interview with an anti-apartheid activist discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast breached the controversial issues standard, as no alternative perspective was presented either within the broadcast, in any proximate broadcast or in other media. The Authority declined to uphold the remainder of the complaints because: the statements complained of were either expressions of opinion or matters the Authority cannot determine and therefore were not subject to the accuracy standard; the statements did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the programme did not treat any individual or organisation unfairly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold complaints that three broadcasts showing fishing and hunting were barbaric and cruel. As the Authority has noted in previous decisions on similar complaints from the complainant, killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life and her concerns are based primarily on personal lifestyle preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about three episodes of fishing and hunting programmes. In general, her complaints were that fishing and hunting are barbaric and cruel. More specifically, she objected to the practices of catch-and-release fishing, live baiting and boar hunting. [2] The issue is whether the broadcasts breached any of the standards set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-090:Toomer and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-090 PDF243. 66 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jeremy Wells' 'Like Mike' skit on the Hauraki Breakfast show, in which he parodied radio and television presenter Mike Hosking, Mr Wells made various comments about Māori people and Stewart Islanders. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were racist, offensive and degraded Māori and Stewart Islanders. The item was clearly satirical and intended to be humorous, and was consistent with audience expectations of the programme and the radio station. As satire, the item did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Māori or Stewart Islanders and this form of speech is a legitimate and important exercise of the right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging R&R breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness standards. The programme discussed Aotearoa New Zealand’s colonial history. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996 - 029 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...