Search

The Authority did not uphold a complaint a report on 1 News showing footage of a homicide at a Raumanga service station breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. The complainant considered it was inappropriate to show footage of ‘a murder being committed,’ and that it promoted antisocial behaviour. The Authority found the footage was justified in the context, noting there was no unreasonable or unnecessary degree of graphic detail, news programmes by their nature often feature challenging material, and the introduction to the item (which signposted the ‘confronting video clip’ and included a warning) adequately informed viewers of the nature of the footage, enabling them to choose not to watch. It also noted the public interest in showing the footage given Police’s request for assistance in the matter....

Warning: This decision discusses issues of sexual abuse of children and suicide. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that documentary 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth was inaccurate by not mentioning the denomination or titles of school chaplains involved in sexual abuse of students, or a complaint that the inclusion of re-enactments of memories of survivors re-traumatised victims of abuse, promoted sexual offending against children, breached privacy and was unfair to child actors involved. The Authority found that omission to mention the denomination or title of chaplains would not have materially altered the audience’s understanding of the documentary. The Authority also found that the inclusion of re-enactments did not breach the standards nominated, noting in particular that audience members (including survivors of abuse) were given appropriate information to make informed viewing decisions, no re-enactment depicted sexual violence and the offending of paedophiles was condemned throughout....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment made on Mike Hosking Breakfast referring to the use of te reo Māori names for government departments as the ‘Māorification of this country’. The complainant argued that the comment implied it was a bad thing to be Māori. While recognising the comments may be offensive to some people, in the context they did not meet the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about offensive language and sexual themes in an episode of New Zealand Today, a satirical ‘journalism’ programme by comedian Guy Williams. The programme was broadcast at 8. 35pm, classified 16-LSC (advisory for language, sexual content, and content that may offend), and preceded by a full-screen warning, with the classification and advisory labels repeated after each advertisement break. Given audience expectations of Williams and the programme, the classification, the warning and the scheduling, the Authority found the broadcast would not cause widespread undue offence in the context, and audiences were able to make their own informed viewing choices. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in? ’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an item on Nine to Noon breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, due to a presenter using the expression ‘effing annoying’ when describing a character in a book review. 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 this complaint.   Declined to Determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard regarding a match of Super Smash Cricket which featured the te reo Māori phrase ‘kore puta’ (following the English phrase ‘not out’) onscreen when a review was called for whether the player batting was out or not out. The complainant considered the word ‘puta’ was highly offensive due to its different meaning in other languages such as Spanish and Portuguese. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding that in the context of a broadcast of a New Zealand domestic cricket match, and the previous phrase onscreen ‘decision pending’ also translated in te reo, it was clear the word ‘puta’ was being used as a te reo translation for the word ‘out’. In this context, the Authority did not need to consider what the word may mean in other languages....

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a joke made on 7 Days breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The show featured a segment where comedians were asked to come up with scary kids’ shows, to which one of the responses was ‘High School Musical 4: The Active Shooter. ’ The complainant alleged this joke was offensive due to recent school shootings in the United States. The Authority found the joke was not outside of audience expectations for the programme, and the nature of the content was sufficiently signposted through audience advisories. In this context, the joke was not likely to widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding MPs being infected with COVID-19 and mask-wearing breached multiple broadcasting standards. The Authority found the host’s comment that she would rather get COVID-19 than wear a mask all day was unlikely to seriously violate community standards of taste and decency. The comment did not relate to a recognised section of the community as contemplated by the discrimination and denigration standard or reach a threshold necessary to constitute discrimination or denigration. Nor did the broadcast ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance as required for the balance standard to apply, and the comment at issue was an opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and which was unlikely to mislead the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Overnight Talk breached the discrimination and denigration, offensive and disturbing content, and fairness standards. A caller to the show advised the host he believed Russia was acting in ‘the least violent way possible’ in its invasion of Ukraine, to which the host responded heatedly, referring to the caller’s opinion as ‘stupid’ and ‘bullshit’. The Authority was satisfied the language used amounted to low-level language, and the host’s comments, while potentially seen as disrespectful by some, did not reach the level necessary to constitute unfair treatment. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply as the comments were directed at the caller as an individual. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness  ...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that reality show Naked and Afraid, broadcast after 9pm on Rush, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, a man and woman are left in a remote location naked and with few tools, with the goal to survive for 21 days. With reference to previous decisions on similar programmes, the Authority found the complaint should not be determined as it has consistently not upheld complaints concerning adult-oriented content on late night television when tools aiding choice and control are available. Further, the complaint concerned the complainant’s personal preferences and such complaints are not, in general, capable of being resolved by this complaints process. Decline to Determine: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of So Dumb its Criminal broadcast at 9. 30pm on Duke breached the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast, hosted by Snoop Dogg, featured a panel of Black comedians commenting on clips of criminals making ‘dumb’ mistakes. The commentary by the panel included multiple uses of the n-word, jokes about white people and ‘white privilege’, and what appeared to be a reference to a fictional kung fu character when describing one of the people featured. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the n-word, it noted this word has been ‘reclaimed’ by the communities affected by it, and was used in the broadcast by Black comedians joking amongst themselves....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item included a brief comment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from his first televised address following the deaths of key Hamas leaders which the complainant alleges was in breach of multiple standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint finding it relates to a matter of editorial discretion/personal preference and identified no harm sufficient to outweigh the right to freedom of expression. Declined to Determine under s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance and Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on Seven Sharp breached the offensive and disturbing content standard by describing a driver who uses mobility car parks illegally as an “arsehole”. The Authority acknowledged some viewers may find it offensive but, in the context, found it unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or seriously violate widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard, regarding a 1News football match preview which included a montage of crowd shots. The complaint was about a crowd shot where a Palestinian flag was visible. The Authority has declined to determine the complaint on the grounds it concerned matters of personal preference and did not raise issues of potential harm which required the Authority’s intervention. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined) Offensive and Disturbing Content...