Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the movie Fifty Shades Darker was in breach of standards because it glorified a manipulative and abusive relationship. The Authority found viewers were sufficiently informed about the nature of the content to enable them to manage their own viewing. The movie did not contain any content that would go beyond audience expectations for the classification and timeband, especially given the well-publicised nature of the movie. The movie did not encourage violent or law-breaking activity. Finally, the Authority also found that people who engage in BDSM (a sexual practice that involves the use of physical control, psychological power, or pain) are not a recognised group for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

The reality television series, Harnas Wildlife Rescue Camp, profiles various workers and volunteers and their day-to-day activities at the Harnas Wildlife Foundation (Harnas) in Namibia. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Harnas was being misleadingly promoted through the programme as an ethical wildlife sanctuary, when in the complainant’s view, the facility and conditions were inhumane. The Authority found that the programme was presented as a slice-of-life, observational documentary, which did not shy away from presenting difficult material and the challenges facing Harnas. As such, viewers were shown the conditions at Harnas and were provided with sufficient information to make up their own minds about the welfare of the animals. On this occasion therefore, the harm alleged to have been caused did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 3 News item reported on National Party candidate Mark Osborne's failure to name all bridges relevant to his campaign promise during the Northland by-election, to convert 10 bridges to two lanes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the editing of the item was unfair to Mr Osborne by creating the impression he was unable to name all 10 bridges. The item contained clear statements as to the number of bridges Mr Osborne could name and did not unfairly represent his state of knowledge. Further, the item was broadcast in the context of a robust by-election environment when politicians can expect a high level of scrutiny....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Campbell Live, reporting on Pike River Mine, included radio transmission audio between those in the mine and those in the office on the morning of the disaster. The audio contained the complainant’s full name which he considered to be a breach of his privacy. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, as Mr Scott’s employment at the mine was not a private fact, and the disclosure of his name was not associated with any blame or disclosed for the purpose of encouraging harassment. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live, reporting on Pike River Mine, included radio transmission audio between those in the mine and those in the office on the morning of the disaster....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that two guest panellists’ comments on The AM Show about English rugby players following the Rugby World Cup final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. Discussing some players’ refusal to wear their silver medals after losing the final, the panellists made comments including that the English players were ‘pouty little babies, pathetic, stupid, dumb, bad sportsmanship’, ‘petulant English kids’, ‘prats’, ‘it’s their upbringing’, ‘those English players who wanted to toss their medals on the ground’. The complaint was that these comments were nasty and offensive, and ‘racist’ by suggesting ‘it’s [the players’] upbringing’. The Authority noted the large majority of the comments were clearly directed at the individual players concerned, rather than commenting on a group of people....

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....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the terms ‘synthetic cannabis’ and ‘synthetic cannabinoids’ in a Newshub segment that reported on these products, their availability and the fact they have been responsible for a large number of deaths in New Zealand recently breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that while these products do not contain actual cannabis, the terms ‘synthetic cannabis’ and ‘synthetic cannabinoids’ are commonly used to describe them, both by agencies like the Ministry for Health and the NZ Drug Foundation, and also by the media. Therefore, the Authority did not consider it likely viewers would be significantly misinformed by their use in this broadcast. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] At the conclusion of an interview with a scientist on The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry asked her, ‘Did you have sex with Richard Branson? ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the question was inappropriate and discriminated against women. It was a provocative remark that was not unduly surprising given Mr Henry’s well-known style. It was also relevant that the scientist herself was apparently not offended and was aware she might be questioned about Mr Branson. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry interviewed a scientist, Dr Michelle Dickinson, about her research. At the end of the interview he asked about her recent experience staying with Richard Branson, a well-known businessman....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on The Project, in which host (and comedian) Jeremy Corbett compared the time then National Party Leader Todd Muller and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent thinking before responding to a question about whether US President Donald Trump is racist. The complaint was that the segment breached broadcasting standards by implying Mr Muller ‘failed’ by answering the question too soon and by comparing Mr Trudeau with Mr Muller rather than Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The segment was clearly intended to be comical rather than a serious political commentary. In that context it would not have misled viewers and did not trigger the requirements of the balance standard. Nor was the item unfair to Mr Muller who, as then Leader of the Opposition, could reasonably expect to be the subject of media coverage and commentary, including satirical commentary....

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....

During an episode of Newshub, political editor Tova O’Brien used the term ‘SNAFU’ in reference to a plane the Prime Minister was supposed to be on breaking down. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘SNAFU’ was unacceptable and a breach of the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that, taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the nature of the programme, audience expectations of Newshub and the fact that the offensive word implied was not explicitly stated in the broadcast, the use of ‘SNAFU’ did not threaten community norms of good taste and decency, or justify restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on The Paul Henry Show featured the two presenters discussing recent law changes in Russia that mean it is now illegal to misrepresent Russia’s involvement in World War II, and that people would be fined for swearing on television, in theatre or in films. Mr Henry gave examples of Russian swearwords. There was also a discussion about ‘butt plugs’ made in the likeness of Vladimir Putin and of Paul Henry. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the language, the references to Russia’s involvement in the war, and the discussion about ‘butt plugs’ were offensive. The segment was on late at night and targeted at adults, it was intended to be light-hearted and was consistent with expectations of the show and of Paul Henry....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two episodes of Story featured items about self-described ‘professional political campaigner’ Simon Lusk. In the first item, presenter Duncan Garner was shown hunting with Mr Lusk, and Mr Lusk apparently shot two deer. Excerpts of political figures being interviewed about their involvement with Mr Lusk, and of Mr Lusk discussing such involvement, were shown throughout the items. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the items were in breach of multiple broadcasting standards for the way Mr Lusk’s involvement in politics was reported and for featuring footage of deer hunting. The footage of the deer hunting was not so graphic or gratuitous that it would have offended a significant number of viewers, including child viewers....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News item reported on the results of its latest political research poll. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the results were inaccurate because they were within the margin of error of +/- 3. 1 percent. Viewers are familiar with this mode of reporting, particularly in the lead-up to an election. The margin of error was clearly displayed onscreen, leaving the audience to form their own views about how much weight should be given to the poll. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction [1] A 3 News item reported on the results of its latest political research poll. A political correspondent outlined the results of the poll in relation to party standings, seats in the house, and preferred Prime Minister. The item aired on TV3 on 30 March 2014....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber, and made unfair and derogatory comments about her duties and her personal attributes. The broadcaster upheld the complaint, and Mr Henry apologised on air a week later. The Authority considered the segment to be a serious breach of standards, but in all the circumstances found the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Introduction [1] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber and discussed her position and responsibilities. The presenter also read out excerpts from her job description....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, featured a photo of an alleged terrorist and host Paul Henry joking about the type of dialogue that would occur between members of a terrorist group. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that this promo was highly offensive ‘so soon after the Paris terrorist attacks’ and breached the controversial issues standard. The promo did not explicitly mention the Paris terrorist attacks, was apparently intended to be humorous (as the hosts were all shown laughing) and was consistent with expectations of the host programme. The promo also did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue which triggered the requirement to provide balance. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, showed a photo of an apparent terrorist....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering animal welfare in rodeos. David Wratt complained that the item, which covered loss of animal life in rodeos, should focus on the deaths of babies as human life is more valuable than animal life. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency; Programme Information; Discrimination and Denigration; Balance; Fairness...