Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News item reported on a charge of offensive language laid against a police woman, following an incident between her and a taxi driver. The item showed excerpts of the taxi’s security footage and contained interviews with the taxi company’s managing director and office manager who were critical of the police and considered assault charges should have been laid. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item prejudiced the police woman’s right to a fair hearing and that it was inaccurate and unfair. There was high public interest in the item, the item was largely presented from the perspective of the interviewees and the taxi company, and it did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote criminal activity....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3 News discussed a leaked internal report which reviewed the Labour Party's election strategy. Towards the conclusion of the item the reporter briefly referred to the recent installation of security doors between the Labour and National Party offices at a cost of $30,000. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance on this point. The brief reference to the installation of the doors did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance in the context of this item, which focused on the leaked Labour Party report – so the requirement to present alternative views was not triggered. Not Upheld: Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on 3 News reported on a leaked internal report which reviewed the Labour Party's election strategy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Newshub during the election period featured a political reporter discussing the potential factors behind the Labour Party’s drop in the Newshub election poll. During the segment the reporter stated that the National Party’s claim that Labour would increase income tax if elected was a ‘lie’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment was unfair and biased. The Authority emphasised that it is an important function of the media to comment critically on party policies and actions and that this type of speech has high value in terms of the right to freedom of expression, particularly during election time. Political parties should expect to be subject to robust criticism and the Authority was satisfied the political reporter’s comment did not go beyond what could be expected during the election period....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on The Project discussed the End of Life Choice Bill (the Bill) before the Select Committee of Parliament. The item featured interviews with advocates for and against the legalisation of euthanasia in Aotearoa. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unbalanced or that the use of certain terms such as ‘euthanasia’ was inaccurate. The Authority recognised the legalisation of euthanasia is an important and ongoing issue of public importance in New Zealand. The Authority found that overall the item was sufficiently balanced and was unlikely to mislead or misinform viewers, so any restriction on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Balance, AccuracyThe broadcast[1] An item on The Project discussed the End of Life Choice Bill (the Bill) before the Select Committee of Parliament....

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensiveSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Broadcasting Standards Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of 7 Days, in which a panellist said an Australian Santa would say ‘G’day cunts’, breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that the language was coarse and may have offended some viewers. However, taking into account relevant contextual factors including the nature of the programme, which is targeted at adults, audience expectations, the Adults Only classification, the warning for ‘bad’ language at the beginning of the programme, and the time of broadcast, the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree contained an interview with a man who was involved in a family feud over the provisions of his mother's will. The man described the legal battle with his brothers, and the item showed two old photographs of the brothers, one of whom was WS. The Authority upheld the complaint that WS' privacy was breached as he had not consented to having his image shown in the programme. Upheld: Privacy Order: Section 13(1)(d) $1,500 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree looked at the consequences of not writing a will or having a will contested. It contained an interview with a man, X, who was involved in a family feud over the provisions of his mother's will....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Face Off, a reality competition show in which the contestants are special effects make-up artists, screened during the animated movie Chicken Run. The Authority upheld a complaint that the promo breached standards of good taste and decency. The promo’s images of gory and wounded prosthetic body parts went beyond audience expectations of a G-rated family movie and were likely to distress child viewers. The Authority however did not agree that the images showed ‘violence’ or violent acts as envisaged by the violence standard. Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyNot Upheld: ViolenceOrder: Section 16(4) $500 costs to the CrownIntroduction[1] A promo for Face Off, a reality competition show in which the contestants are special effects make-up artists, screened during Chicken Run, an animated family movie which was rated G (for general audiences)....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, featured a photo of an alleged terrorist and host Paul Henry joking about the type of dialogue that would occur between members of a terrorist group. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that this promo was highly offensive ‘so soon after the Paris terrorist attacks’ and breached the controversial issues standard. The promo did not explicitly mention the Paris terrorist attacks, was apparently intended to be humorous (as the hosts were all shown laughing) and was consistent with expectations of the host programme. The promo also did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue which triggered the requirement to provide balance. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, showed a photo of an apparent terrorist....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News reported on three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges, and showed images of two lists of names, in which the complainants' names featured. The Authority declined to uphold complaints that by showing their names during a discussion about the accused sex offenders, the item breached the complainants' privacy. Their position as Parliamentary Service employees was not private, the inclusion of the complainants' names was peripheral to the item, and there was no suggestion that the complainants were the accused sex offenders, as the three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges were explicitly identified by both their names and their images....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two items on Newshub reported on incidents of violence which occurred in the city of Hebron, in the West Bank, and in Jerusalem. The Authority did not uphold complaints from the Wellington Palestine Group that the items were inaccurate and misleading. The reporters’ references to Hebron in the West Bank, and to Jerusalem, were correct and there was no implication during either item that these events occurred in Israel, as alleged. The lack of an explicit reference to ‘Occupied Territories’ or to ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’ did not result in the items as a whole being inaccurate or misleading. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] An item on Newshub reported on the shooting of a wounded Palestinian man by an Israeli soldier in the city of Hebron in the West Bank....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order Introduction [1] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged ‘bullying, deception and targeting the vulnerable’. It was reported that the Israeli women staffing the kiosks were working illegally, without work permits. The item was broadcast on TV3 on 1 July 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub discussed revelations that the pension of New Zealand First Leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters, had been overpaid for up to seven years. The segment featured excerpts of a phone interview with Mr Peters, details about Mr Peters’ press release and subsequent comments made by Mr Peters about the overpayments. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority did not consider that it was necessary to obtain a copy of the full phone interview transcript in order to determine whether the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair (as requested by the complainant)....

During a segment of The AM Show, which discussed how different sections of the community had united in the wake of the Christchurch mosque attacks, host Duncan Garner said he’d like ‘the gangs’ to nominate a person to ‘look after’ the alleged attacker. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Garner’s comment breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found, upon consideration of contextual factors, including the glib nature of the comment, that while it was discordant with the tone of the broadcast and may have caused offence to some, it did not go beyond audience expectations of Mr Garner or The AM Show. The Authority concluded that any restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unreasonable.   Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live reported on a couple who faced bankruptcy after buying a house infested with termites. The item disclosed the names of the vendor, the company and staff responsible for the building report, and the real estate agent. It showed footage of the real estate agent’s office window, which had printed on it the names and phone numbers of the real estate agent and his business partner. A majority of the Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached the agent’s and the business partner’s privacy. The agents’ details were publicly available, the footage of their phone numbers was brief and it was not broadcast for the purpose of encouraging harassment; no causal link was demonstrated between the broadcast and the alleged harassment....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview conducted with then-Minister of Health, Dr David Clark, on his breaches of the COVID-19 Alert Level 4 ‘lockdown rules’. The complainant argued that the interview amounted to harassment and bullying, and breached the fairness standard. The Authority found that the robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected of a public figure being interviewed on a matter of significant public interest, particularly given the expectation as to how politicians will be treated by the media. Not Upheld: Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A National Party campaign advertisement (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) parodied Labour’s campaign motto, ‘Let’s do this’ with an advertisement with the tagline, ‘Let’s tax this’. The advertisement suggested that a Labour government would impose a number of new taxes (a capital gains tax, land tax, regional fuel tax, income tax, water tax and a ‘fart tax’). A voiceover at the conclusion of the advertisement said: ‘There’s still only one way to stop Labour’s taxes. Party vote National’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the election programme was inaccurate and misleading by implying a number of ‘bad’ taxes would be introduced or raised by Labour, which was not the case....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a Newshub report regarding government employees accessing pornographic sites while at work breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Newshub report included images of web addresses for the sites accessed. The Authority noted the public interest in the prevalence of, and harm caused by, pornography and considered that the content was within audience expectations for the news. In the context, the item was unlikely to cause widespread offence or undermine community standards and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Paul Henry featured an interview with the president of the Police Association about assaults on police and the debate about whether to arm front-line police officers with tasers. Towards the start of the interview, Mr Henry said, ‘The numbers are truly extraordinary, aren’t they? Violent attacks on police officers are definitely going up’. The Authority upheld a complaint that this comment was inaccurate, as the number of assaults on police officers was actually decreasing. However, it did not uphold a complaint that the item was unbalanced, as MediaWorks made reasonable efforts to provide balance on the issue of taser carriage by police within the period of current interest....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider a complaint referral about a video uploaded to video-sharing website platform YouTube, which featured clips from a broadcast of The Project. The Authority noted that its jurisdiction, which is prescribed under the Broadcasting Act 1989, is limited to consideration of formal complaints about television and radio broadcasts. In this case, the complainant was concerned about content uploaded to YouTube and edited by a third party. The content of the video predominantly comprised commentary by that third party. The Authority therefore did not have jurisdiction to accept and consider the complaint referral. Declined Jurisdiction  The YouTube video[1] A video uploaded to video-sharing website platform YouTube featured a woman’s response to New Zealand media coverage of an upcoming visit from speakers Stefan Molyneux and Laura Southern....