Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – host expressed view that medical personnel were deliberately overmedicating patients with dementia causing them to die – complainant called station to challenge host’s comments but was cut off – host used the term “zombie” to refer to person with dementia – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcasters have the right to screen calls, as a matter of editorial discretion, provided they comply with the requirements of fairness – host did not make any derogatory or abusive comments but simply chose not to engage with the complainant which was not unexpected in the context of talkback radio and the programme – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host did not make unqualified statements of fact (guideline 5b) – programme was not inaccurate or…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Muslim outrage caused by cartoons first published in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed – item concluded with satirical depiction of Jesus Christ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfair in that it encouraged the denigration of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – contrast in attitudes to freedom of speech about religious convictions is controversial issue of public importance – dealt with in balanced way in full item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – lampooning of Christians did not amount to blackening of reputation – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs not subject to classification system – warning was broadcast – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – warning included before current affairs item – not upheldThis headnote…...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the word ‘cunt’ in the New Zealand crime drama series, One Lane Bridge, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority observed that the standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama and considered that the threshold for its intervention had not been reached. It determined that use of the word, in its context, did not contain the level of malice or nastiness required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and did not amount to hate speech or a sustained attack on women as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Ms Loates declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint 20/20 – documentary – mental health outpatient– inaccuracies – lacked balance – discrimination against mental health patients – verbal agreement about interview content Findings(1) Standard G1 – inaccuracies not proven – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided where required through interview with mental health provider – no further imbalance proven – mentally ill not portrayed as inferior – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 20/20 called "Flatmate Wanted" was broadcast on TV3 on 12 September 1999, from 7. 30pm. The item concerned the deaths of Lachlan Jones and Malcolm Beggs and was critical of the mental health system, which it implicated in the deaths....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-063:Milnes and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-063 PDF445. 85 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-082:Woolerton and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-082 PDF245. 5 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from 20 complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host questioned the teachings of a deceased Sikh religious figure by posing hypothetical questions about how he and his widow, now also deceased, had children. The host implied that, given the leader’s teachings about celibacy, his widow and other family members must have had sex with animals. The complainants alleged that this discussion breached the privacy of the individuals referred to, and was degrading and humiliating. The Authority acknowledged that the segment was in poor taste, but found that the broadcast was not in breach of the standards raised by the complainants....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on The Project, the hosts discussed a new artificial intelligence technology capable of detecting a person’s sexual orientation through analysis of their facial features. In response, presenter Jesse Mulligan commented, ‘That’s an amazing story, a computer can tell if you’re gay or not. I hope the computer can keep a secret. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment ‘perpetuated the prejudiced view that homosexuality [was] something to be kept secret and… shameful’. The Authority found that, while Mr Mulligan’s comment could be seen as ‘clumsy’ or tactless, it was clearly intended to be humorous and it did not actively encourage the different treatment, or devalue the reputation of, gay people as a section of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the show’s hosts asked callers to submit a ‘corny joke’. A caller submitted the following joke: ‘What’s the hardest part about cooking a vegetable? Trying to fit the wheelchair in the pot. ’ Before the caller delivered the punchline, one of the hosts (who believed he knew the joke), asked his co-hosts to switch off their microphones so they could discuss it. The hosts also spoke to their producer, asking whether it was appropriate to air the punchline to the joke. After some deliberation, they decided to allow the joke to be broadcast. The hosts reacted to the punchline by saying, ‘No! No! That’s a terrible joke! ’ and ‘That’s not a joke! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment was in poor taste and discriminatory....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

A complaint that a radio host asking a caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ breached the discrimination and denigration standard has not been upheld. A broadcast of Afternoons with Andrew Dickens featured a discussion between Mr Dickens and a caller about Māori sovereignty, the Treaty of Waitangi and racism. During the discussion Mr Dickens asked the caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ The Authority found that while the comment was patronising, misinformed and likely to offend some listeners, it did not contain the level of condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and therefore any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary Station identification promos broadcast on TV One included the slogan "Together We’re One", and the logo "Celebrating New Zealand". Mr Seymour complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that the promos encouraged the denigration of Maori and, in particular, discrimination against the legitimate expression of Maori cultural and political beliefs. They promoted, he wrote, an ideology that was inherently assimilationist. TVNZ responded that the reference to "One" was to TV One. The promos implicitly reflected a "one-ness" between TV One and its viewers, and placed that theme in a determinedly bi-cultural context which recognised cultural diversity, it replied. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Seymour referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – (1) racist remarks – offensive language; (2) denigrated Maori FindingsNo tape provided – unable to determine complaint on merits Principle 8 – relevantOrderCosts of $250 to the complainant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Talkback host John Banks was reported to have made critical references to the contribution by Maori to the millennium celebrations in New Zealand in a programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 17 January 2000 between 8. 15–8. 50am. Hohepa Campbell complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that the host’s comments were offensive and anti-Maori and incited racial disharmony. As he did not receive a response from The RadioWorks within the statutory time frame, he referred the matter to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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. ]During the talkback programme, Overnighter, host Garry McAlpine invited listeners to call in to discuss the issues facing New Zealand in 2018, one of which was the upcoming cannabis referendum. Mr McAlpine strongly expressed his view, throughout the programme, that cannabis should be decriminalised for medicinal and recreational use. A number of callers, including the complainant, expressed their views on the subject, with some supportive of, and others opposed to, Mr McAlpine’s views. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Talkback radio is known for robust discussion, and broadcasting standards recognise that it is an opinionated environment, with hosts granted some latitude to be provocative and edgy in the interests of generating robust debate. This programme in particular featured genuine discussion on an important issue in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four items on Newshub featured stories related to the United Kingdom and/or the British Royal Family. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the Newshub items and the reporters’ comments were biased, unfair and derogatory towards the United Kingdom and/or members of the British Royal Family. The Authority found that the news reports did not contain any material which discriminated against or denigrated any section of the community, or which could be said to be unfair to members of the British Royal Family. The items also did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which triggered the requirement for balancing perspectives to be given, and did not raise accuracy or programme information issues....