Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider a complaint referral about a video uploaded to video-sharing website platform YouTube, which featured clips from a broadcast of The Project. The Authority noted that its jurisdiction, which is prescribed under the Broadcasting Act 1989, is limited to consideration of formal complaints about television and radio broadcasts. In this case, the complainant was concerned about content uploaded to YouTube and edited by a third party. The content of the video predominantly comprised commentary by that third party. The Authority therefore did not have jurisdiction to accept and consider the complaint referral. Declined Jurisdiction  The YouTube video[1] A video uploaded to video-sharing website platform YouTube featured a woman’s response to New Zealand media coverage of an upcoming visit from speakers Stefan Molyneux and Laura Southern....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Newshub item reporting on changes to Reserve Bank rules requiring commercial banks to hold more capital in reserve was unbalanced. The item focussed on the potential effects of new capital requirements on the public, particularly borrowers. The Authority recognised that the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance and was satisfied that the item featured significant viewpoints on the particular issue discussed. The Authority also noted that the issue had been widely covered in other news media and viewers could be expected to receive a broad understanding of the main perspectives on the issue within the period of current interest. Not Upheld: Balance...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A Campbell Live item reported on a convicted fraudster, X, and contained interviews with her ‘victims’, including a disabled man who had advanced money to X on the basis her daughter would become his wife. A photo was shown of his supposed wife-to-be (the complainant). The Authority did not uphold her complaint that showing her photograph breached her privacy. While it was unfortunate, very few people would have identified the complainant, there was no suggestion she was involved in the scam, and viewers were more likely to think the photo was not legitimate, so the disclosure was not highly offensive. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live reported on a convicted fraudster, X, who allegedly took advantage of vulnerable people....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Campbell Live covered a story about an eader (a pit for raw milk waste) in the town of Eltham in Taranaki that was allegedly making local residents ill. The South Taranaki District Council complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair. The Authority found that this was an important story which carried high public interest and that much of it was accurate and well-reported. Nevertheless, a number of statements conveying the gravity of the problem with the eader did not have a sufficient basis and were overblown, which was misleading and unfair. Accordingly the Authority upheld some aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Accuracy, FairnessNo OrderIntroduction[1] Campbell Live covered a story about an eader (a pit for raw milk waste) in the town of Eltham in Taranaki that was allegedly making local residents ill....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Newshub broadcast a story about the outcome of a review by Michael Heron QC of Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) fisheries prosecution decisions. The reporter referred to the resignations of two senior MPI officials, implying that the resignations were connected to the outcome of the Heron review. The Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast was unfair. The item reflected negatively on the two individuals’ professional reputations and had the potential to adversely affect them. In the interests of fairness, the broadcaster should have given the individuals affected a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations, which did not occur. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy standard, as it found the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy by relying on sources which it satisfied itself were credible....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3 News reported details of John Key’s meeting with the Indonesian president. The newsreader discussed terrorism in Indonesia and referred to Indonesia as ‘the biggest Muslim country in the world’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this statement was inaccurate, finding that viewers would have understood the intended meaning that the majority of Indonesians are followers of Muslim faith. The Authority also declined to uphold the complaint that the discussion of terrorism in Indonesia denigrated Muslims and/or Indonesians, as it was factual and did not carry any invective. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration   Introduction [1] An item on 3 News reported details of John Key’s meeting with the Indonesian president....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Jono and Ben showed a parody of the Biblical event the Last Supper, in which the 'disciples' complained that 'Jesus' brought bread to dinner when 'Simon' and 'Paul' were 'gluten-free'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the promo was offensive to Christians. Light-hearted satire of religious figures is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression. This particular skit was not malicious and did not threaten norms of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] A promo for Jono and Ben showed a parody of the Biblical event the Last Supper, in which the 'disciples' complained that 'Jesus' brought bread to dinner when 'Simon' and 'Paul' were 'gluten-free'. [2] Lois Durward complained that the promo was offensive to Christians, especially as it was shown during the week before Easter....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for the latest season of 7 Days showed comedians featured on the programme preparing the show’s host for the ‘potentially hostile environment’, by heckling and pelting him with objects. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promo trivialised the issue of bullying. The promo was a parody sketch of the type of heckling typically made by contestants during an episode of 7 Days, and common to live comedy programmes of this genre. It sought to recreate this live comedy environment in a humorous, satirical and highly exaggerated way, and in this context, the promo did not condone, encourage or trivialise bullying behaviour....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a segment on The Project that questioned whether a ‘stolen generation’ was being created in light of an investigative report into Oranga Tamariki’s uplifting of a child breached broadcasting standards. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of the issue addressed but found the item, and specifically the host’s use of the term ‘stolen generation’ was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress. The Authority also found the item was unlikely to mislead viewers regarding the situation considering the nature of the programme and the presentation of alternate viewpoints on the issue. Finally, the Authority found the broadcast did not result in any unfairness to Oranga Tamariki that justified the restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, as its perspective was clearly presented in the short item. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has upheld two complaints that a segment on The Project, about an incident where charges against a man who allegedly shot at a drone were dropped, was in breach of the fairness and accuracy standards. The Authority found the segment was unfair to the man and would have misled audiences as it provided an inaccurate account of events through an interview with the drone’s pilot and additional comments from presenters. The drone pilot interviewee was allowed to put forward unchallenged his views on the man, and the broadcaster did not do enough to provide the man with an opportunity to respond to the comments. As the broadcast did not disclose any private information about the man, nor discuss a controversial issue of public importance, the privacy and balance standards were not upheld. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy Not Upheld: Privacy, Balance No orders...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on Newshub regarding the Invercargill Licensing Trust Group (ILT) was inaccurate. The item reported on the ILT’s history, purpose and its funding of community projects and ventures. The Authority found that the segment was unlikely to significantly misinform or mislead viewers regarding the ILT. The Authority also found that none of the issues raised by the complainant amounted to a material inaccuracy for the purposes of the accuracy standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments made by Paul Henry during Rebuilding Paradise with Paul Henry undermined the Director-General of Health’s directions regarding compliance with COVID-19 Alert-Level conditions. Mr Henry noted there were no new cases of COVID-19 on the day of broadcast and commented, ‘I don’t want Dr Ashley Bloomfield to threaten me and you with the “if New Zealanders aren’t good at Level 3, they won’t get to Level 2” warning. I realise people think he walks on water, but I don’t. …Obedience in the population is the job of the police and, god help us, the reluctant [Police] Commissioner’. Noting the importance of the right to freedom of expression and that Mr Henry was clearly giving his views on a topic of high public interest, the Authority found no actual or potential harm that justified regulatory intervention....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the item was unbalanced and inaccurate because it was more favourable to the ‘pro-fat’ side of the debate. The broadcaster clearly made efforts to interview experts on both sides of the debate, and viewers were left to make up their own minds or seek further information about the merits of the diet. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. A reporter interviewed a number of experts, and also talked to several people who had experienced weight loss and health benefits from the diet. The item aired on TV3 on 23 April 2014....

During a segment on The AM Show that discussed immigration to New Zealand host Mark Richardson said: ‘we’re clearly not getting enough English immigrants to become traffic officers’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Richardson’s comment was discriminatory to nationalities that are ‘not English’ in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the complainant did not identify a ‘section of the community’ for the purposes of the standard. The Authority also found that, considering audience expectations of The AM Show and Mr Richardson, the light-hearted nature of the comment and other contextual factors, the comment did not reach the threshold required to be considered discriminatory or denigratory. Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Love Island UK, aired at 5pm and classified G, breached the children’s interests standard. The Authority noted that the episode of Love Island UK was heavily edited to meet the G classification required for the 5pm timeslot and was not the same as the extended version of the programme available online on ThreeNow. The Authority found that in the context in which it was aired the broadcast did not cause harm at the level that justified intervention by the Authority. While the episode of Love Island UK contained some mature themes, and may not reflect values that all parents and caregivers would endorse for children in their care, it did not contain content that would alarm or distress children to the extent justifying intervention....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about a news item featuring an eleven year old boy who won a trip to go to a Rugby World Cup 2019 game in Japan with Richie McCaw. The Authority was unable to identify any elements in the broadcast that would raise any concerns under the standards raised. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was frivolous and trivial.   Decline to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Alcohol, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a remark about suicide made by Mr Burns at the end of The Simpsons Movie was in breach of the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority acknowledged that the remark pushed the boundaries of the G (General) classification and recognised the need for broadcasters to take particular care when addressing subjects such as suicide. However, noting the nature of, and audience expectations for, The Simpsons as well as the nature and position (within the credits) of the remark, the Authority concluded that the programme was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or to be unduly harmful or disturbing to children. The Authority also noted that there were no scenes of violence depicted. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests and Violence...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mark Richardson’s response to a gift from a guest on The AM Show breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. Noting contextual factors, including audience expectations of the programme and of Mr Richardson, the Authority did not consider that Mr Richardson’s comments were likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, undermine widely shared community standards or adversely affect children. The Authority also did not uphold a complaint that a discussion about beer brands breached the alcohol standard. While the Authority found that the positive comments regarding Peroni could be regarded as promotion of the Peroni brand, the Authority considered that any promotion of alcohol was socially responsible in the context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Alcohol...