Search Rapua

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that an episode of Country Calendar depicted cruelty towards animals. The episode focused on the work of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Foundation’s conservation work. It included footage of Wapiti deer being hunted and shot from a helicopter, collected, and processed at an abattoir. The Authority has consistently found that hunting is a reality of life in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the depiction of hunting footage is generally acceptable provided it does not depict undue cruelty. The Authority did not consider this broadcast included any such footage justifying a departure from these findings. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

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...

This complaint concerns a competition promo for Vince during ThreeNews including scenes of the main character sitting apparently naked in a bathroom stall and standing with a group of people in front of a banner labelled ‘CASH FOR THE CANCER KIDS’ when his trousers fall down. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the promo breached the children’s interests standard due to nudity, noting Vince’s buttocks and genitals were pixelated and there was no suggestion of sexual behaviour. The Authority found the promo was appropriate for broadcast during an unclassified news programme and did not require an advisory. It also found the promo was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and did not promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a promo for Love Triangle that aired during an episode of Treasure Island: Fans v Faves at around 8pm breached the offensive and disturbing content, and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that while the programme Love Triangle was rated 16-L, and Treasure Island: Fans v Faves was rated PG-L, the editing of the promo meant it was appropriate for the rating of the host programme and the timeslot. On this basis the promo would not have caused widespread undue offence, or harm to children in the audience justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has declined to determine six complaints about various TVNZ broadcasts, under several standards, as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, issues raised had recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination and/or the standards raised did not relate to the relevant complaint. Two complaints were also trivial. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial; and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content, balance and accuracy standards about a segment of The Watermelon Report that said Jesus Christ was ‘a Palestinian’ and ‘a Palestinian refugee’. The Authority found the segment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience in the context of audience expectations of The Watermelon Report and the host. The broadcaster’s proactive broadcast of a clarification indicating the claim about Jesus was the presenter’s view and was ‘not universally supported’ addressed any concerns under the accuracy standard. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Seven Sharp segment breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The complainant alleged co-host Jeremy Wells held a cucumber in a way that could be ‘likened to a man holding an erect penis’. The Authority found any innuendo in Wells’s behaviour was low-level and would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed regular Seven Sharp viewers, noting the segment’s light-hearted tone. The Authority noted adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes and such content did not require an audience advisory. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

Warning: This decision contains language some readers may find offensive.   The Authority has not upheld a complaint under multiple standards about an episode of “It’s Personal with Anika Moa”, including the f-word and other swear words.  In the context, including the ‘colourful language’ warning preceding the broadcast, the Authority found it was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and audiences were provided with sufficient opportunity to protect children in their care from hearing inappropriate content.  The Authority also found the swearing was unlikely to promote the behaviours contemplated under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp item which featured presenter Hilary Barry accompanying an entertainer and keen hunter on a seasonal duck shooting trip to mark the hunter’s appointment as the first patron of Fish & Game New Zealand. The complainant considered the item offensive in showing animal cruelty and disrespect for wildlife, inaccurate in stating ‘only introduced species’ are hunted in Aotearoa New Zealand (noting the patron shot a native paradise shelduck), and failed to reflect alternative perspectives on the cruelty and ecologically harmful effects of duck shooting. The Authority found the segment was a human-interest piece focused more on the patron than hunting and was consistent with the style and tone of Seven Sharp; viewers would not have been unduly surprised or disturbed by the 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 about comments made by the presenter of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding a suggestion by a representative of The New Zealand Initiative that New Zealand’s car seat regulations should be relaxed to increase birth rates (with reference to a United States study, ‘Car Seats as Contraception’). The presenter said, ‘And here’s the really challenging thing. Car seat regulations, they reckon might save about 60 children from dying in car crashes in a year across the [United] States, but they stop 8,000 families from having babies. So, you save 60, but you don’t have another 8,000. Maybe you’re better off having the 8,000 and losing the 60 – hey, I said it was going to challenge you. ’ The complaint was that the presenter’s tone and comment was ‘appalling’ and suggested ‘losing 60 kids was not a bad deal’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Midday Report segment on Charlie Kirk’s death, which included a recording of Kirk’s final interaction and the gunshot which killed him. The complainant considered it offensive and lacking in decency to broadcast Kirk’s final moments. In the context, including comments alerting listeners to the pending content, the Authority found it was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the Midday Report audience. Those who did not wish to listen were given a reasonable opportunity to turn the programme off. Noting the significant public interest in the segment, the Authority also found no harm justifying its intervention to limit the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. The privacy standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Privacy...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, 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, Discrimination and Denigration...

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 declined to determine a complaint that use of ‘Praise the Lorde’, in relation to New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde, breached broadcasting standards. Given the Authority’s guidance regarding blasphemy in its Complaints that are unlikely to succeed publication, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.   Declined to determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing content, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made during Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB regarding the New Zealand Police’s decision to continue with charges against Ms Z, the woman involved in the Jevon McSkimming case. The complaint was that the comments – including labelling their relationship an ‘affair’, saying Ms Z was ‘not innocent’, and referencing ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’ – demonstrated classic ‘victim blaming’, minimised and misrepresented Ms Z’s experience, and were unbalanced and unfair. The Authority considered the segment overall was consistent with well-established audience expectations, and any potential offensiveness or unfairness arising from some of the comments did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression or the public interest. The Authority also found the comments were either clearly opinion or not materially inaccurate and not required to be balanced in the context....