Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the title of a segment ‘tradie versus lady’ on ZM’s Bree and Clint. While the Authority agreed with the complainant the title may be sexist and outdated, it did not encourage discrimination and denigration in breach of the standard.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 did not uphold a complaint alleging an item on 1 News about nurses suffering ‘fatigue and burnout’ breached broadcasting standards. The complainant was concerned for an interviewee’s mental wellbeing and the broadcast’s omission of any interview with the interviewee’s employer or discussion of the employer’s accountability for the situation. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply, as no controversial issue was discussed; the issue of current nurse shortages is a fact. In any event, significant perspectives on the issue were broadcast within the (ongoing) period of current interest. The Authority also found the broadcast was materially accurate and unlikely to mislead viewers. The discrimination and denigration standard also did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint the use of the term ‘iTaukei’ to refer to indigenous Fijians breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In light of the Authority’s previous finding that a similarly innocuous use of the term did not breach broadcasting standards, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that The Hui breached the discrimination and denigration standard through its use of te reo Māori without subtitles, and by demonstrating ‘Māori-centric racism’ in its discussion of whether mātauranga Māori should be viewed as science. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances)...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-110 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W M MOORE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 74/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NOBILANGELO CERAMALUS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-120 Dated the 19th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J D�ERRICO of Wellington Broadcaster CAPITAL CITY TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryAccording to host John Banks, in his programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 31 July 1998 between 6. 00-9. 00am, New Zealand needed allies like the Americans to protect it from enemies like Japan. Other similar references were made to Japan and its people. Mrs Knight complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks should not have been broadcast. In her view, the only purpose of the comments was to engender negative feelings among New Zealanders about Japan. She considered they were personal views, which Mr Banks should have kept to himself. Mrs Knight asked for an explanation and apology. In its response, Radio Pacific emphasised that talkback was a forum in which a variety of views could be expressed, even those which were contentious and provocative. It suggested that those who objected to Mr Banks’ views should phone and have their say on air....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-062 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GERALD MOONEN of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint regarding two broadcasts, relating to threats to public officials over the Government’s use of 1080 (including footage of an anti-1080 protest featuring the complainant), was not upheld. The Authority found the use of the footage, in segments on Newshub and The AM Show, did not result in any unfairness to the complainant. The Authority considered these broadcasts did not link the complainant, or the majority of anti-1080 protestors, to the threats, as both broadcasts stated that the threatening behaviour was from the fringes of the movement. The Authority determined that the audience was therefore unlikely to be misled or misinformed. The Authority also found a comment made by host Duncan Garner during The AM Show segment, implying Willie Apiata should be sent to harm the people who made the threats, did not breach broadcasting standards....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus – consulted various experts – challenged traditional Christian view as encapsulated in the gospels – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – issues canvassed in the programme were matters of historical interest as opposed to controversial issues of public importance – authorial documentary approached from perspective of Mr Bruce – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the commonly accepted view of the gospels – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the programme consisted of Mr Bruce’s comment and opinion based on his personal research – viewers would not have been misled – given subject matter of documentary the Authority is not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Homeland – fictional drama series in which the CIA investigates a possible terrorist threat – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama – programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a 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 1989Paul Holmes Show – guest host read out text message which used the phrase “pre-op tranny” – phrase repeated by a listener who called the show – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard – broadcaster upheld the complaint under Standard 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient considering the nature of the breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

A segment on The Project reported on ‘hateful attacks’ occurring during Pride month, including claims of discrimination at Bethlehem College (and the Ministry of Education’s announcement it will investigate the issue) and the burning down of a Rainbow Youth centre in Tauranga. The segment included an interview with a rainbow activist who considered ‘extremist Christians’ had burnt the centre down. The presenters discussed the issue following the report and noted they hoped the investigation would bring about ‘some change in a place that really needs it. ’ The complainant considered the segment breached various standards as the cause of the fire was under investigation at the time of the broadcast, and the College was portrayed unfairly. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the relevant comments did not reach the high threshold justifying a restriction on freedom of expression....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the fairness standard during an episode of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive was insufficient. The complaint related to an interview with a 16-year-old climate activist about the Schools Strike for Climate movement, and the group’s key demands. During the interview, the interviewee admitted she had recently travelled to Fiji, despite one of the group’s demands being a ban on ‘unnecessary air travel’. This resulted in the host hysterically laughing at, and teasing the interviewee for over a minute. The broadcaster conceded in light of the interviewee’s age and potential vulnerability, the segment breached the fairness standard. The Authority determined it too would have found a breach of the fairness standard, but in the circumstances considered the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to address the breach....

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?...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News was denigrating or unfair by including footage of a displaced West Auckland resident, following the Auckland Anniversary floods, taking a donut from a box. The complaint stated the footage represented a racial stereotype, degrading the woman. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard as it concerned the woman as an individual rather than a recognised section of the community, and was not unfair as she was not portrayed unfairly negatively. In any case, inclusion of the footage was an editorial choice that was open to the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, 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...