Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – contained interview with a psychologist who discussed different personality types in the workplace – presenter used the term “schizos” before and during the interview – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked necessary invective to reach threshold – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any person or organisation he felt had been treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 22 September 2009, contained an interview with psychologist and employment relations expert Dr Giles Burch. [2] At 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – host repeatedly referred to the Catholic Church as “the church of paedophilia” and commented that “the church is rife with paedophilia among its priests” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, fairness and accuracy Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issues of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – the church’s representative was given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the comments made by the host – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – host did not make any unqualified statements of fact – the accuracy standard did not apply – not upheld  This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported sentencing of man convicted for stabbing a teenage tagger – reporter asked victim’s family for comment regarding defence lawyer telling them to “get over it” – footage showed lawyer saying it was “time for people to move forward, to move on” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – reporter’s question was a reasonable summation of the lawyer’s comments when juxtaposed with footage of lawyer’s comments – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber, and made unfair and derogatory comments about her duties and her personal attributes. The broadcaster upheld the complaint, and Mr Henry apologised on air a week later. The Authority considered the segment to be a serious breach of standards, but in all the circumstances found the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Introduction [1] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber and discussed her position and responsibilities. The presenter also read out excerpts from her job description....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item discussing the results of the first 1News Verian political poll for 2024. The item included analysis and commentary on the poll from 1News’ Deputy Political Editor, which the complainants considered was either ‘biased’, unbalanced, inaccurate or unfair to the coalition Government. The Authority found no breach of the nominated standards: the item included significant relevant perspectives; the statements complained about were comment, analysis, or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply; and the item did not give rise to any unfairness to the politicians or parties featured. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that allowing an interviewee to wear what appeared to be a keffiyeh during an interview about the government’s introduction of new ‘move-on’ orders breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority found broadcasting the interviewee wearing this garment would not have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or have had the effect of encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, Jewish people. It noted, if the garment was in fact a keffiyeh, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-006 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by N E ARCHER of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintTarget – description of house cleaner as tradesperson – denigration of tradespeople – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – offensive Findings (1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – no uphold (3) Standard G4 – no unfairness – no uphold (4) Standard G13 – no denigration or discrimination – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 at 7. 00pm on 14 May 2000 featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial. One of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour....

SummaryThe "Bluffer’s Guide" is a regular feature of Ansett Time of Your Life. In the programme broadcast on TV3 on 26 May 1998 at 8. 00pm, it focused on cigar smoking. Mr Pester of Pahiatua complained through the Broadcasting Standards Authority to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the programme glorified cigar smoking in a manner which would be attractive to young people. He argued that TV3 had employed a deceptive programme practice because it encouraged young people to smoke cigars, and that it had failed to be mindful of the effect of the programme on children. In addition, he contended that it had contravened the Smokefree Environments Act 1990. TV3 responded that the programme, while rated G, was aimed at a mature audience. It did not believe that the segment would have appealed to children, and noted that the host did not reinforce the behaviour by smoking herself....

SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary Four appliance repair centres were given a faulty microwave oven to repair and the results were reported on Target broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd on 6 June 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. Manukau Appliance Service Centre Ltd repaired the microwave by bypassing the variable power switch with the result that it could only operate on high power. Mr Welch, Managing Director of Manukau Appliance Service Centre, complained to the broadcaster that the item was unfair to his company because it left the impression that his staff were incompetent in locating faults in electrical equipment. Of major concern, he said, was that TV3 had failed to include explanatory comment from the company about the work it had done. TV3 responded that the repair test had been conducted fairly and the testing had been overseen by two independent technical experts....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that a group of Australian teenage boys had filmed their attack of a teenage girl and were circulating the footage on DVD – showed some images of the boys’ attack – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, unfair, and in breach of children’s interests and the violence standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Standard 10 Standard 2 (Law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to teenage girl or homeless man – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to violent content – broadcaster did not consider the interests of children – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to…...

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

Summary A representative of a beneficiaries’ organisation was interviewed on National Radio’s Nine to Noon on 21 July 1999 beginning at 9. 06am. The interview arose in the context of controversy surrounding the operation of Work and Income New Zealand. Mr Boyce complained to RNZ, the broadcaster, that the beneficiary representative was not treated fairly because he was not named in the introduction to the item. He contended that the interviewee was discriminated against because of his status as a beneficiary. RNZ provided a brief response in which it asserted that the interviewee had been dealt with fairly, and that it had acted in a socially responsible manner. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s response, Mr Boyce referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 112/94 Dated the 17th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAME THEA MULDOON of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-102 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS NORMAN of Wellington Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LTD J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryBlack Spots. White Crosses, a documentary programme broadcast on TV3 on 12 November 1998 at 8. 30pm, focussed on some factors which contributed to road fatalities on the Auckland-Waikato Highway. An interview with a truck driver who had been involved in a collision, and footage of the accident scene including some photographs, were shown when examining one accident in which a driver and his baby daughter had been killed. CC and DD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) about the use of these photographs. They maintained that some aspects of the footage and the commentary were untrue, and breached their and their family’s privacy. CC also complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was untrue in part, unfair, and intrusive and distressing. TV3 responded that the programme had increased public understanding of road fatalities, and used publicly-available facts....