Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on Seven Sharp featured an interview between Mike Hosking and Jacinda Ardern on the day Ms Ardern became leader of the Labour Party. Mr Hosking questioned Ms Ardern about the state of the Labour Party and her leadership credentials, and also commented on what he believed to be the ‘chaotic’ state of the Labour Party and its chances of winning the 2017 General Election. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment was unbalanced and inaccurate, finding that the broadcaster provided sufficient balance by allowing Ms Ardern a reasonable amount of time to answer the interview questions. The Authority also noted the significant amount of coverage the leadership change received during the period of current interest....

A segment on Seven Sharp reported on an electric tugboat named ‘Sparky’ going to meet the first cruise ship to come to Auckland following the COVID-19 pandemic. Sparky was described as ‘the world’s first fully electric ship-handling tug,’ which the complainant alleged was inaccurate. While the Authority acknowledged that this detail was likely technically inaccurate, in the context of a human interest piece focused on Sparky’s mechanical features, it found this was unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp screened footage of an incident involving celebrity singer Beyoncé’s sister physically attacking Beyoncé’s husband in a lift. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item made light of the serious issue of violence or denigrated men. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence. Introduction[1] Seven Sharp screened footage of an incident involving Beyoncé’s sister physically attacking Beyoncé’s husband in a lift, that had attracted the attention of media worldwide. It was broadcast at 7pm on TV ONE on 13 May 2014. [2] Wayne Burrows complained that the hosts ‘made light of this serious issue laughing and joking about the violence’. He said that by laughing the presenters glamorised the violent behaviour, and because the violence was by a woman against a man, the laughter denigrated men....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the inclusion of a clip during Seven Sharp of two people pitch invading or ‘streaking’, one of whom was in a wheelchair, breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. While the Authority acknowledged streaking is illegal at major sporting events, the streaking in the clip occurred at a club football match. The reason the clip was highlighted and presented in a positive light was because one of the streakers was in a wheelchair, which is not a typical occurrence, and because the clip had been shared around the world. Further, at the beginning of the clip the host explicitly commented ‘Pitch invasion is frowned upon these days. ’ In the circumstances, the Authority found the clip was unlikely to promote or encourage streaking. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an episode of Seven Sharp breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, as one of the hosts used the phrase ‘bloody good buggers’. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking made comments about the most recent report of the IPCC. The Authority did not uphold four complaints that his comments were misleading and irresponsible. The comments were clearly Mr Hosking’s opinion, and the right to freedom of speech explicitly protects expressions of opinion even if they are unpopular or incorrect. Mr Hosking is well known for this type of monologue where he offers his opinion on any number of issues, sometimes in a provocative manner....

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement by TVNZ’s Seven Sharp reporter that a film was set ‘amid a nationwide confiscation of Māori land’ during an interview with actor Temuera Morrison. The complainant alleged confiscations were not nationwide, and that Māori land dispossession can be attributed in part to legitimate land sales to the Crown. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material in the context of a segment focusing on Morrison’s acting career and promotion of a film, and that, in any case, it was not misleading to refer to ‘nationwide confiscation’ considering the extent of contested Māori land dispossession which occurred in the relevant period. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed the UK’s move to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040, to encourage the use electric vehicles (EVs). Following the item, presenter Mike Hosking outlined the ‘hurdles’ to be overcome before a similar move could be made in New Zealand, stating that there was ‘no charging network’ in New Zealand and that the cost of EVs was ‘too high’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Hosking’s statements were inaccurate and misleading. Noting that the accuracy standard does not apply to statements of analysis, comment or opinion, the Authority found that, in this case, Mr Hosking’s statements on the cost-effectiveness of EVs, and the lack of charging network in New Zealand, represented his own opinion and analysis on the topic, which viewers would not have expected to be authoritative....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of Seven Sharp included a short round-up of things that had recently ‘caught the attention’ of the presenters, including cheese ‘made of milk with human toe jam and belly button bacteria’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was offensive and breached standards of good taste and decency. While some viewers would have found the subject matter unpleasant and distasteful, it did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency to an extent which breached the standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] An episode of Seven Sharp included a short round-up of things that had recently ‘caught the attention’ of the presenters. Commenting on a picture of a round of cheese, one presenter said: This cheese might look delicious – like a good aged brie perhaps. Wrong....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp one of the presenters made comments about Guy Fawkes celebrations and fireworks. The complainant alleged that the presenter's comment, 'Did you know a burning sparkler is five times hotter than boiling water? ' was inaccurate. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial. The presenter was giving her opinion about the likelihood of fireworks being banned and her mention of the temperature of sparklers would not have materially altered viewers' understanding of the item. Declined to Determine: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During her 'final word' segment on Guy Fawkes night, a Seven Sharp presenter gave her views on the likelihood of fireworks being banned in future, saying: We've got Guy Fawke's tonight, guys....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During her ‘final word’ segment on Seven Sharp presenter Toni Street discussed her support for arming front-line police officers with tasers and mentioned the recent murder of Blessie Gotingco. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that her comments were inaccurate and misleading. Ms Street’s comments were clearly opinion which were exempt from standards of accuracy; she did not connect the use of tasers to Blessie Gotingco’s murder; and she did not make any statements of fact that were inaccurate or would have misled viewers. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During her ‘final word’ segment on an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Toni Street discussed her support for the recent move to arm front-line police officers with tasers. She said:Alright, according to our poll on tasers tonight. . . drumroll. . ....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment depicting students cycling on a footpath. The complainant stated this was contrary to the Cycling Code. While acknowledging the depiction of potentially unlawful behaviour, the Authority found, in the context of the programme, the broadcast did not promote, glamorise, or condone breaking the law. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

A segment of Seven Sharp on 13 October 2021 reported on the COVID-19 vaccine. The complaint was the segment breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards as the report incorrectly stated the vaccine was safe for people that are pregnant or breastfeeding. The Authority found the relevant statements were materially accurate. In any event, it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on Dr Nikki Turner as an authoritative source. In dismissing material relied upon by the complainant to challenge the vaccine’s safety, the Authority also cautioned against the risk of contributing to misinformation by drawing conclusions from extracts of information without an understanding of the context. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp on Valentine’s Day reported on a woman who had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item glamorised theft and was unfair to the man. It was clear from the item that the woman had given the man ample opportunity to retrieve the sunglasses, and he was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgramingIntroduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp, broadcast on 14 February 2014, included an ‘anti-Valentine’s Day’ story where a woman had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s editorial comments following the item were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. In making its decision, the Authority acknowledged the influential position of the presenters, but found that alternative views were conveyed during the item and in subsequent items during the period of current interest. The presenters’ comments were their opinion and analysis of the issues discussed, rather than statements of fact, so they were not subject to the accuracy standard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During an item on Seven Sharp, broadcast on 23 August 2017 during the election period, the presenters discussed TVNZ’s ‘Vote Compass’, a tool available to assist the New Zealand public to make voting decisions. In response to comments by presenter Toni Street about the usefulness of the tool, presenter Mike Hosking said, ‘…so is the fact that you can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled in the Māori electorate, so what are you going to do now? I’m joking....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp the presenter Hilary Barry welcomed a temporary presenter, Matt Chisholm, who responded by saying ‘it’s bloody good to be here’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘bloody’ breached the good taste and decency standard, finding the use of the term in the context of this programme was not inappropriate or unnecessary. The Authority has consistently found this expression to be colloquial language commonly used as an exclamation in our society. The Authority noted that Seven Sharp is aimed at adult viewers and the expression was not intended to be aggressive or pejorative. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm by the use of this term did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....