Search Rapua

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 item lacked balance and was misleading by failing to accurately present the perspective of the New Plymouth public who were opposed to Mr Judd’s proposed reforms. While it was framed primarily as a profile piece on Mr Judd, the item’s discussion of the proposed Māori ward triggered the requirement for balance....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning a reporter’s thanking and farewell on behalf of ‘the tangata whenua, from the indigenous people here in Aotearoa’ in an interview with Chilli from TLC. The complainant considered it was ‘highly offensive and racist to single out specific groups of people and not include all people of New Zealand’. The Authority found the standard did not apply, as the comments did not target a recognised section of the community for the purposes of the standard. In any event, the comments did not reach the threshold required for a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a Seven Sharp item referring to Wilson Parking breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item covered a dispute between a carpark customer and Wilson Parking. A Fair Go consumer advocate also provided general advice to people about their rights in relation to parking fines. In the context of providing general information to viewers from a consumer advocacy perspective, the advice did not breach the accuracy standard. The Authority also found the broadcast did not breach the fairness standard. It noted that Wilson Parking had been given an opportunity to comment on the specific customer’s situation and, as a multinational company, could reasonably have been expected to be aware that the programme would use the specific situation to discuss the company’s wider operations. It could have expanded the statement provided to the broadcaster.   Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured the story of a man who, due to delays in having minor surgery for a skin cancer cyst, suffered severe health problems. The man said that ‘[The cyst] went from less than a centimetre to 35 centimetres’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the description of the cyst as ‘35 centimetres’ was inaccurate. The exact measurement was not a material point of fact in the item, and it was clearly the man’s own recollection of his experience. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured the story of a man who, due to delays in having minor surgery for a skin cancer cyst, had his eye and part of his face removed and was given a terminal diagnosis....

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....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the usage of the word ‘root’ in a Seven Sharp item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority took into account the relevant contextual factors including the nature of the discussion, the nature of the programme and the audience expectations of the programme. The Authority did not consider that the use of the word threatened community norms of good taste and decency, or that any potential harm justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who is a long-standing voluntary euthanasia campaigner. The item also discussed the history of attempts to legalise voluntary euthanasia in New Zealand and overseas. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item lacked balance. The item did not solely approach voluntary euthanasia from the personal perspective of the interviewee. It included a wider discussion of the voluntary euthanasia debate and law reform that triggered the requirement for presentation of alternative views, which were not presented within the programme or within the period of current interest. Upheld: Controversial Issues No Order  Introduction [1] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who has been a voluntary euthanasia campaigner for the last two decades....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – item reported on Labour MP Shane Jones throwing a “Lazarus party” to mark his return to the front bench – presenter commented, “Leaving aside anything about resurrections and dodgy movies in hotels, Shane Jones is actually known for referring to himself in the third person” – presenter’s comment allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter did not make any reference to Christ and nothing in the broadcast would have offended or distressed viewers, or encouraged discrimination or denigration against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

*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. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics and included an interview with Mr Hager. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the Seven Sharp host was biased and treated Mr Hager unfairly. The host’s comments were clearly his opinion, and Mr Hager was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forward his position. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp was introduced by the hosts, Mike Hosking and Toni Street, as follows: Hosking: So, question: are we shocked at what Nicky Hager has in his book, Dirty Politics? In a word, I think no. it is not the big exposé Hager claims it is; there is no smoking gun....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the privacy of the child of the alleged cat killers. The accused were not named, shown, or otherwise identified in the item, so no individual, and specifically the child, could be linked to them, meaning the child was not ‘identifiable’ for the purposes of the privacy standard. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan after 30 cats went missing in past the year. A reporter travelled to Raglan and interviewed a local filmmaker who recently released a short documentary that aimed ‘to find out why it was happening and who was behind it’....

In an episode of Seven Sharp, host, Hilary Barry, interviewed a woman with type one diabetes about an encounter she had with waitstaff at a restaurant when eating food brought from home. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the accuracy standard (by giving viewers the impression that kumara salad can treat hypoglycaemia). The Authority was satisfied that a reasonable viewer was not likely to be misled by the broadcast into thinking that kumara salad is a treatment for hypoglycaemia. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the couple's privacy as the information was already in the public domain at the time of broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp featured a young girl who was passionate about pig hunting. The item contained footage of the girl and her father on a pig hunt, including footage of the pig bailed up by dogs, as well as the young girl holding the pig’s heart after it had been gutted, and carrying the carcass. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The subject matter of the item was clearly signposted by the hosts, who also provided a warning about the content. Viewers and caregivers were therefore given a reasonable opportunity to exercise discretion or make a different viewing choice....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the upcoming flag referendum and featured an interview with an Australian advocate for changing the flag. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that presenter Mike Hosking ‘encouraged the New Zealand public to vote a certain way by reiterating his own prejudices and then using an Australian broadcaster to support his own views’. While Mr Hosking made his view in support of changing the flag known, the alternative view was adequately presented during the item. Given the widespread coverage of the flag referendum, viewers could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant perspectives on the issue, and would not have been deceived or disadvantaged as a result of this item. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp discussed the upcoming flag referendum....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking read out a letter from a disgruntled viewer about comments he had made during an earlier episode about music group One Direction. The letter contained numerous expletives which were 'beeped' out during the broadcast. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the 'disgusting' language was contrary to good taste and decency and children's interests. Beeping is a commonly employed broadcasting technique to mask potentially offensive language. While most viewers would have discerned what the words were, in the context of an unclassified current affairs programme targeted at adults, which is known for being humorous and at times provocative, the segment did not threaten standards....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Seven Sharp reported on the Russian government banning adoptions of its orphans by New Zealand couples, because of New Zealand’s marriage equality legislation. The reporter referred to Vladimir Putin as ‘homophobic’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate and misleading. The comment was clearly analysis and commentary by the reporter, rather than a material point of fact, so it was not subject to standards of accuracy. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction [1] A Seven Sharp item reported that the Russian government had banned adoptions of Russian children by New Zealand couples, because of New Zealand’s same-sex marriage legislation. The reporter referred to ‘old homophobic Vladimir Putin’. The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 3 July 2014. [2] Terry Wallbank complained that the reporter’s reference to Mr Putin as homophobic was inaccurate, biased and misleading....

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...