Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld four complaints about a segment on The AM Show, which featured host Duncan Garner criticising parents who do not vaccinate their children, using terms such as ‘murderers’ and ‘bloody idiots’, and stating they should be ‘stripped of their right to spread their message and their viruses’. The Authority found that, taking into account audience expectations of Mr Garner and The AM Show, alongside other contextual factors, Mr Garner’s comments did not breach broadcasting standards. With regard to the balance standard, the Authority found that, while the anti-vaccination movement was a controversial issue of public importance, Mr Garner’s comments did not amount to a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard, but reflected his own personal views on the issue....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 35/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET CHAPMAN of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Off the Wire – participants discussed a food outlet that had opened in a church – commented “the body of Christ does come with six grams of fat” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – in context, not indecent or in poor taste – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item not critical of Christians or Christian practices – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The participants in Off the Wire, broadcast on National Radio on 3 October 2004 at around 3:00 am discussed recent news events, including the opening of a food outlet in a New York church....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host made comments about television personality who hosted Anzac Day programme on Māori Television – said she would have been paid “$25,000 or thereabouts” – questioned whether she would have “been allowed to take that lovely piece of greenstone home with her” – host also called Māori Television “disgusting apartheid TV station” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly speculation – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not a “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Sunday – previewed item on disputed territory of East Jerusalem – presenter stated, “Sunday travels to Israel to bring you Jew against Arab from a truly unique perspective” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was a fair summary of the situation featured in the programme – both sides were represented in the promo – did not reach threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals not groups – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – promo did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast between 1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM Breakfast – host and caller used the term “poofter” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment did not contain sufficient invective to reach the threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Between 8am and 9am during the More FM Breakfast programme, broadcast on More FM on 21 May 2010, the hosts discussed how they would be participating in a winter pool jump. A female host said, “So you’ve got to grin and bear it, suck it up. Don’t be a wuss. ” A male host said he had been talking to his dad about it, because he had done a winter swim before....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – live news bulletin reported on Christchurch earthquake – included close-up footage and interviews with victims – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – unedited live news item reporting on extraordinary natural disaster – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people shown identifiable – victims vulnerable – however, no interference in nature of prying – public interest – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – unscheduled live news programme – warnings – public interest – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintLexus Sunday Theatre: Hound of the Baskervilles – Promo – Jesus Christ – blasphemy FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6a – did not encourage denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Jesus Christ" was the phrase uttered by a character shown in the promo for The Hound of the Baskervilles. The promo for the Sherlock Holmes drama, to be screened on "Lexus Sunday Theatre", was broadcast on TV One at about 7. 15pm on 31 May 2003. [2] Evan Swale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that use of the phrase "Jesus Christ" was denigratory, and insulting and offensive. [3] In response, TVNZ acknowledged that the use of the phrase in that way could cause offence to devout Christians....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Panel, a study was discussed which showed women are now outdoing men in some areas of cognition. The panellists joked about whether the study explained the reasons behind a ‘man’s look’ or why men do not replace toilet rolls. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that their comments denigrated men. They were clearly intended to be humorous and light-hearted, and did not carry any invective. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During The Panel, the male host and female panellists discussed a new study which showed women are catching up to men in some areas of cognition and outpacing them in others due to better health, education and living conditions....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about an item on Mike Hosking Breakfast. The complainant was concerned about a discussion of unvaccinated health workers, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainant’s personal views and in all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-133 Dated the 10th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALEXIS KEIR of New Plymouth Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News concerning increased racism experienced by public figures in relation to co-governance issues breached the balance, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards. The complainant alleged the association of opponents of co-governance with racist abuse was an attempt to paint all opponents as racist and stop debate. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate and the expert featured could reasonably be relied upon, and the balance standard was not applicable. While the complainant was concerned the broadcasts denigrated opponents of co-governance, this group is not a recognised section of society for the purposes of the standard. Not upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on RNZ’s 9am news bulletin about an electricity shortage in New Zealand breached multiple standards. The complaint focused on the broadcast’s allegedly inappropriate use of terms such as energy, fossil fuels, power and electricity and the omission of contextual information. In the context of the news bulletin, the Authority found RNZ’s audience was unlikely to be misled. Accordingly, the accuracy standard was not breached. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on a police search that ended up with two officers being shot and a police dog being killed – contained interviews with a neighbour living next to the property where the incident occurred and the Commissioner of Police – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview with Police Commissioner was straightforward and respectful – Mr Broad and the police treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s behaviour and comments did not encourage the denigration of members of the New Zealand police force –…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host described Minister of Health as a chicken and derelict in her duty – offensive and denigrating FindingsPrinciple 1a – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7a – comments acceptable on talkback – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Minister of Health was criticised for not going to Christchurch to try to settle a threatened nurses strike there. The comments were made by the host (Bill Ralston) on the talkback station, Radio Pacific, between 11. 00am–2. 00pm on 30 November 2001. [2] David Stott complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments, which included a description of the Minister as a "woof" and "chicken", were insulting, denigrating and in poor taste. [3] As Mr Stott did not receive a response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion of South Africa & New Zealand one day cricket match – callers’ questions about match-fixing and bonus point – host terminated one call apparently from an Asian with reference to match-fixing in the sub-continent – another call terminated with sarcasm – unfair – racist FindingsPrinciple 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7 – opinion not racial slur – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The result of the previous evening’s one day cricket match between New Zealand and South Africa was one of the topics on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 2 February 2002 hosted by Doug Golightly. One caller questioned whether the result was fixed, and another asked whether South Africa had earned a bonus point....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on The Country featured the host interviewing The Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern not long after she began her term as Prime Minister. Towards the beginning of the interview the host asked the Prime Minister, ‘Do you wake up and say to yourself, “Holy shit! I’m Prime Minister! ” and have to pinch yourself? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host’s comment breached community norms of good taste and decency and was discriminatory. Taking into account relevant contextual factors including low level of offensive language used, the light-hearted tone, and audience expectations, the broadcast did not threaten community norms of good taste and decency, or justify restricting freedom of expression....