Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging sports commentary of the ICC World Test Championship final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The comments ‘it's a story that's akin to David versus Goliath…and living proof that sometimes, just sometimes, nice guys do finish first’ did not refer to a particular section of the community as contemplated by the standard. In any event, it was typical of sports commentary and did not have a prejudicial meaning. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment referring to a rugby player as a ‘Jew’ because he was unwilling to pay for his wedding breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority observed that the comment was an example of casual anti-Semitism and such comments can contribute to the normalisation of racism. However, while the Authority considered the comment to be ignorant and disrespectful, in the context it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about the movie Overlord as the complaint to the broadcaster did not amount to an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the broadcaster did not have to accept this as a valid formal complaint, on the grounds the complaint was about the storyline and genre, rather than an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Declined jurisdiction...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate for a news item to include footage which allegedly featured a ‘crisis actor’. The Authority found that whether or not the footage was propaganda as claimed by the complainant, its inclusion would not have materially affected the audience’s understanding of the item overall. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the broadcast of UFC 286 Prelims Live on Prime between 8am and 10am, and re-broadcast on Prime+1 between 9am and 11am, breached the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards. The complainant considered the broadcast of mixed martial arts (MMA) fights was offensive and inappropriate to broadcast at a time when children may be watching television unsupervised. The Authority found, taking into account the context, including that UFC 286 Prelims Live was; an unclassified live sports broadcast; preceded by a warning that it would feature live MMA and would contain content that viewers may find distressing; had an adult target audience; and had a buffer of programmes unlikely to be of interest to children, the broadcast did not breach the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989SKY Sport 1 – Rugby test match between New Zealand and South Africa – a South African player was shown head-butting a New Zealand player – footage repeated three times – allegedly in breach of violence standardFindingsStandard P4 (Violence) – footage not repeated gratuitously – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A rugby test match between New Zealand and South Africa was broadcast on SKY Sport 1 at 7. 30pm on Saturday 10 July 2010. [2] In the opening minutes of the match, one of the South African players head-butted a New Zealand player in the back of the head after tackling him from behind. The referees did not see the infringement and the game continued. Shortly after, play was stopped due to a penalty and footage of the head butt was repeated three times....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Peter Popoff Ministries is a religious programme hosted by controversial televangelist, Peter Popoff. This programme featured Popoff and his wife preaching and allegedly healing audience members, as well as testimonies from various attendees about miracles and financial rewards received from God after they bought Popoff’s ‘Miracle Spring Water’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme was ‘fraudulent’, as it took advantage of viewers who may be misled by the programme into losing money. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s genuine and well intentioned concerns. However, it found that the accuracy standard did not apply to religious programming, such as Peter Popoff’s Ministries, and programme selection and scheduling decisions fell to the responsible broadcaster to determine. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction[1] Peter Popoff Ministries is a religious programme hosted by controversial televangelist, Peter Popoff....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that statements made during Uncharted with Sam Neill were inaccurate. A complaint was made that host Sam Neill and an interviewee during the programme implied that missionaries primarily came to New Zealand for the purpose of acquiring land, which was misleading and misrepresented their good work. The Authority considered that the programme was clearly framed from the outset as a chance for untold or unexplored stories and perspectives to be expressed. In these circumstances, the Authority found that the statements complained about were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and were therefore not subject to the requirements of the accuracy standard. The Authority’s intervention in upholding the complaint would therefore represent an unreasonable and unjustified limit on the right to freedom of expression....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Parliamentary Question Time – showed Deputy Prime Minister at times when he was not answering or asking questions – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard S6 (balance) – programme did not approach the proceedings from any particular perspective – balance not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Coverage of Parliamentary Question Time was broadcast on Sky News at 2pm on 7 April 2005. Complaint[2] Michael Gibson complained that the broadcast was unbalanced because it focused on the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, at times when he was not asking or answering questions. The coverage had shown Dr Cullen “grinning and derisively showing a dismissive attitude towards the Opposition”, he said. [3] Mr Gibson argued that the broadcaster had broken the same rules which had caused TV3 to be banned from filming in Parliament recently....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party which included questions on possible funding cuts a National-led government might make. The complaint was that these statements were an inaccurate portrayal of National’s proposed cuts. The Authority found the statements were clearly questions and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than statements of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. The harm alleged was not sufficient to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention. Standard E4: Misleading Programmes did not apply. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy), E4: Misleading Programmes...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Crowd Goes Wild – presenter made remark about a man with red hair who was attempting to set a new world record for juggling a soccer ball with his feet – allegedly in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – people with red hair not a “section of the community” protected under Standard 7 – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Crowd Goes Wild, a comedic sports news programme, was broadcast on Prime TV at 7pm on Wednesday 27 January 2010. Towards the end of the programme, the presenters reported on an English man and world record holder who was attempting to set a new world record for juggling a soccer ball with his feet while walking 31 miles....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Australian Tennis Open – some footage included a “Live” watermark even though the matches had already been played – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard P8 (accuracy) – not a “significant error of fact” – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] From 14 to 27 January 2008, footage of the Australian Tennis Open was broadcast on SKY Sport 2 between 1pm and 12am. Between matches that were broadcast live, historical footage, simultaneous matches, and highlights from matches which had already taken place were screened to fill in the scheduled breaks. Some of these were introduced by commentators as footage that was filling the time between matches, or identified as games that had already been played earlier in the tournament. For example:. . . Later on, we’ve got the second of the men’s singles semi-finals. . ....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme’s reference to delivering tax relief was misleading as the Party’s policy of ‘tax cuts for the majority of families…[has] been proven to be incorrect by independent economists’. The Authority considered viewers would have understood the statement to be advocacy or opinion rather than fact, encouraging the public to vote for National, and the relevant statement reflected National Party policy; it is not a quantified promise, a guarantee, or a statement of fact. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy), E2: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging comments made by commentators during a golf tournament breached the law and order standard. While discussing the difficulty of the course, a commentator suggested ‘Charles Manson put this [pin position] in! ’ Later in the tournament, the commentator said, ‘whoever set that flag, I can just picture him in his room at night catching flies and pulling the wings off them and watching them suffer’. The Authority found this would not have encouraged, promoted or glamorised illegal or anti-social behaviour in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

An item on Prime News inadvertently contained an uncensored image of the word ‘cunt’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the action taken by the broadcaster in response to this error was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaint under the good taste and decency standard and took steps to address the error with its news producers. The broadcaster also apologised to the complainant. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken)...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – personal story about a same-sex couple and their experience of parenthood through surrogacy – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on one same-sex couple and their personal experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate – it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance requiring the presentation of alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 60 Minutes, titled “The Two Dads Story”, reported on a same-sex couple and their personal experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate. The item screened as a follow-up to a story that aired on Channel 9’s 60 Minutes in Australia in 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for A Nightmare on Elm Street – broadcast on SKY Sport channels – contained brief images from the film of Freddy Krueger – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standardFindingsStandard P3 (children) – images were brief and not disturbing in themselves – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] A promo for upcoming movies on SKY was broadcast on 3, 10 and 15 July at various times on SKY Sport channels. One of the movies being promoted was A Nightmare on Elm Street, and two brief images were shown of the serial killer in the film, Freddy Krueger. [2] Nicola Te Rangiita made a formal complaint to SKY Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the promo breached Standard P3 (children)....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime News – news item repeated footage of a high tackle 12 times – allegedly in breach of violence standard Findings Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain gratuitous violence – footage was repeated to allow viewers to decide for themselves if the player had intended to make the high tackle – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Prime News at 5. 50 pm on 16 August 2007, reported that a rugby league player had been found guilty of a reckless tackle by the Australian National Rugby League judiciary and had been suspended for seven games. During the course of the item, footage of the high tackle was shown 12 times....

ComplaintSky Television Rugby Channel – All Black vs. Springboks match – replay of opening try – commentator said “Well, so slick, so smooth, almost a Brazilian…Ronaldo-ish” – offensiveFindingsStandard S2 – throwaway line – not offensive to majority of viewers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] A rugby match between New Zealand and South Africa was broadcast live on Sky Television Rugby Channel at approximately 7. 30pm on 9 August 2003. The commentator, Murray Mexted, said, during the replay of the All Blacks opening try: “Well so slick, so smooth almost a Brazilian … Ronaldo-ish”. [2] Kristin Hoskin complained to Sky Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to her formal complaint, Ms Hoskin referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....