Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on Waitangi Day events around New Zealand, including Bill English’s first Waitangi Day as Prime Minister and his phone call with US President Donald Trump. The item also featured comment on English’s attendance at Waitangi Day celebrations in Auckland, rather than at Waitangi. Comment was provided by Mr English, as well as political editor Patrick Gower, who said: ‘Waitangi Day celebrations will go on the road… away from Waitangi, away from the cauldron that is Te Tii Marae’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item reflected the Government’s desire to control the image of, and de-politicise, Waitangi Day. The Authority acknowledged the national significance of Waitangi Day, and the views of the complainant as to how it should be celebrated....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on The Project featured an interview with a ‘political consultant and former National [Party] staffer’. The interviewee provided her perspective on why the National Party received more votes than the Labour Party in the 2017 General Election and the disparity between the election result and poll results prior to the election. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcaster’s choice of political commentator was biased and the programme was misleading by suggesting she was an ‘independent political commentator’. The introduction to the segment did not imply that the interviewee was an independent political commentator, but clearly referred to her as a former National Party staffer. As such it created an audience expectation that the interview would be approaching the topic of National’s initial electoral success from a particular perspective....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show. The comment was within audience expectations of the host's well-known style of presentation and humour, and unlikely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers in the context of a news and current affairs programme aimed at adults. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. [2] Iain Wiseman complained that the use of the word 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show when children were likely to be watching....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of 3D investigated alleged bullying within the New Zealand Fire Service, particularly within volunteer brigades. The episode relied in part on testimony from particular individuals who alleged they had been victims of bullying, and in part on a report, which purported to identify bullying as a significant problem within NZFS. NZFS challenged the credibility of the report and argued that the programme breached the accuracy, fairness and balance standards. The Authority did not uphold the complaint. It found that the programme clearly stated there were questions about the status of the report – which in any event only formed part of the basis of the story – so viewers would not have been misled....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for the latest season of 7 Days showed comedians featured on the programme preparing the show’s host for the ‘potentially hostile environment’, by heckling and pelting him with objects. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promo trivialised the issue of bullying. The promo was a parody sketch of the type of heckling typically made by contestants during an episode of 7 Days, and common to live comedy programmes of this genre. It sought to recreate this live comedy environment in a humorous, satirical and highly exaggerated way, and in this context, the promo did not condone, encourage or trivialise bullying behaviour....

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....

The reality television series, Harnas Wildlife Rescue Camp, profiles various workers and volunteers and their day-to-day activities at the Harnas Wildlife Foundation (Harnas) in Namibia. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Harnas was being misleadingly promoted through the programme as an ethical wildlife sanctuary, when in the complainant’s view, the facility and conditions were inhumane. The Authority found that the programme was presented as a slice-of-life, observational documentary, which did not shy away from presenting difficult material and the challenges facing Harnas. As such, viewers were shown the conditions at Harnas and were provided with sufficient information to make up their own minds about the welfare of the animals. On this occasion therefore, the harm alleged to have been caused did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

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...

During a segment on The AM Show, host Duncan Garner referred to an individual as a ‘woolly woofter’. A complaint that the use of this term breached broadcasting standards, as it was homophobic and offensive, was not upheld. The Authority found that, while some viewers may have found the term inappropriate or offensive, the use of the term was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or seriously violate community norms. In the context of the programme, upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Law and Order...

A news segment on The AM Show about name suppression included a clip from an interview with former Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson QC, which had been broadcast live on air earlier in the programme. The clip from the interview played during the news item related to Mr Finlayson’s comments about bullying allegations in Parliament, rather than his views on name suppression laws. The broadcaster acknowledged this clip placement was in error. A complaint was made that this error was significantly inaccurate, as it would have misled viewers as to Mr Finlayson’s views regarding name suppression laws. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding that while the broadcaster made an error in playing the clip during that particular news segment, it was not significantly misleading in the context of the item as a whole. The Authority acknowledged the technical mistake and did not uphold the complaint. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Campbell Live covered a story about an eader (a pit for raw milk waste) in the town of Eltham in Taranaki that was allegedly making local residents ill. The South Taranaki District Council complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair. The Authority found that this was an important story which carried high public interest and that much of it was accurate and well-reported. Nevertheless, a number of statements conveying the gravity of the problem with the eader did not have a sufficient basis and were overblown, which was misleading and unfair. Accordingly the Authority upheld some aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Accuracy, FairnessNo OrderIntroduction[1] Campbell Live covered a story about an eader (a pit for raw milk waste) in the town of Eltham in Taranaki that was allegedly making local residents ill....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referring to phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times as an exclamation when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language breached broadcasting standards. It would not have offended a significant number of viewers or adversely affected any children who might have been watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] The host of Paul Henry said ‘bastards’ when referencing phone scammers and said the word ‘God’ several times when discussing the 2015 Rugby World Cup – for example, ‘by God they are playing well’. [2] Craig Davie complained that Mr Henry used ‘foul language’ and was ‘taking the lord’s name in vain’, which was offensive and unsuitable for children....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The complainant referred to the Authority a formal complaint about the film Fifty Shades of Grey, which was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on Sunday 22 January 2017. The broadcaster argued that the original complaint had been received prior to the broadcast of the film, and so did not constitute a valid formal complaint (and therefore could not be referred to the Authority). To support its position, the broadcaster referred to the time stamp on the automatic acknowledgement email, which is sent to both the complainant and the broadcaster at the time the complaint is lodged. This time stamp read ‘22 January 2017 at 20:25’ (being five minutes before the film was broadcast)....

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 has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Love Island UK, aired at 5pm and classified G, breached the children’s interests standard. The Authority noted that the episode of Love Island UK was heavily edited to meet the G classification required for the 5pm timeslot and was not the same as the extended version of the programme available online on ThreeNow. The Authority found that in the context in which it was aired the broadcast did not cause harm at the level that justified intervention by the Authority. While the episode of Love Island UK contained some mature themes, and may not reflect values that all parents and caregivers would endorse for children in their care, it did not contain content that would alarm or distress children to the extent justifying intervention....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Heat, a comedy/action film about a mismatched FBI agent and police officer working together to take down a drug lord, contained frequent coarse language. The Authority did not uphold a complaint about this language. As the film was classified Adults Only, was preceded by a comprehensive warning and broadcast at 8. 30pm, the Authority found the broadcaster clearly informed viewers about the nature of the film and adequately considered the interests of children. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] The Heat, a comedy/action film about a mismatched FBI agent and police officer working together to take down a drug lord, contained frequent coarse language. [2] Rolfe Jelavich complained about the ‘frequent foul language’ broadcast at a time when children could be watching....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story reported that Auckland purchasers of homes near areas of cultural significance for Māori may need to get consent from iwi before undertaking any structural building work, as part of the Auckland Unitary Plan. As an example of one of the areas of cultural significance, the presenter reported from an empty field, saying, ‘So this is what an area of cultural significance looks like. This is called a midden. . . it’s pretty much a rubbish dump. We looked it up – “midden” is an old Danish word for “domestic rubbish dump”’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item discriminated against and/or denigrated Māori and was unfair....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two Entertainment Tonight episodes, classified PGR, were broadcast prior to children’s programme Sticky TV, which was classified G. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the Entertainment Tonight episodes contained content that was unsuitable for children, and that PGR programmes such as this should not be broadcast immediately prior to children’s programming. Taking into account the context of the broadcast, the Authority found the Entertainment Tonight episodes were within audience expectations of the programme and the PGR classification. The episodes did not contain any strong or adult content, particularly during the transition to Sticky TV, and would not have adversely affected any child viewers when subject to adult supervision. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] Two Entertainment Tonight episodes, classified PGR, were broadcast prior to children’s programme Sticky TV, which was classified G....