Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two Entertainment Tonight episodes, classified PGR, were broadcast prior to children’s programme Sticky TV, which was classified G. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the Entertainment Tonight episodes contained content that was unsuitable for children, and that PGR programmes such as this should not be broadcast immediately prior to children’s programming. Taking into account the context of the broadcast, the Authority found the Entertainment Tonight episodes were within audience expectations of the programme and the PGR classification. The episodes did not contain any strong or adult content, particularly during the transition to Sticky TV, and would not have adversely affected any child viewers when subject to adult supervision. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] Two Entertainment Tonight episodes, classified PGR, were broadcast prior to children’s programme Sticky TV, which was classified G....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview conducted with then-Minister of Health, Dr David Clark, on his breaches of the COVID-19 Alert Level 4 ‘lockdown rules’. The complainant argued that the interview amounted to harassment and bullying, and breached the fairness standard. The Authority found that the robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected of a public figure being interviewed on a matter of significant public interest, particularly given the expectation as to how politicians will be treated by the media. Not Upheld: Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about items on Newshub and The AM Show, which reported on a Police raid of a gang house and featured footage of the complainant’s property, with the house number blurred. The Authority found that the privacy standard did not apply in this case, as the complainant was not identifiable in the broadcast and no private information or material was disclosed about them. As the house was only filmed to the extent visible from the street, the broadcaster did not intrude upon the complainant’s interest in solitude or seclusion in a way that was highly offensive. The Authority recognised the public interest in the broadcast and found that the harm alleged to have been caused by the complainant did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression.   Not Upheld: Privacy  ...

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. ]During an episode of The Block NZ: Girls Vs Boys, contestants ‘Dyls’ and ‘Dylz’ competed in an ongoing ‘Odd Jobs Challenge’, winning $10,000. However, the team was penalised $5,000 for using power tools after hours. When the show’s host, Mark Richardson, and its resident builder and site foreman, informed the team about the penalty, Dyls swore profusely (with swear words censored), knocked a hard hat off a table and knocked down a large piece of plywood. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this segment breached the violence standard. While Dyls lost his temper and acted childishly, his behaviour did not amount to ‘violence’ as envisaged by the standard. Any coarse language was censored and Dyls was not physically violent or threatening toward any member of the show during the incident....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The first segment of The AM Show’s daily panel, featuring panel guests Dr Don Brash and Newshub reporter Wilhelmina Shrimpton, discussed Dr Brash’s views on the use of te reo Māori in New Zealand, specifically in RNZ broadcasting without translation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this panel discussion lacked balance and was unfair to Dr Brash. The Authority found that, while the panel discussion was robust and Dr Brash’s opinion was tested by the panel, Dr Brash was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his point of view in the time allowed....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Newshub reported on ‘cash for job’ work scams in New Zealand. The reporter described the experiences of one worker, who alleged he had been exploited by his employer and told to pay $30,000 for his job as a technician at an internet café. GL, who was named and whose photo was shown during the item, was said to have ‘demanded’ $15,000 from the worker as part of the scam. GL complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair, because he did not demand or receive any payment from the worker and he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub discussed revelations that the pension of New Zealand First Leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters, had been overpaid for up to seven years. The segment featured excerpts of a phone interview with Mr Peters, details about Mr Peters’ press release and subsequent comments made by Mr Peters about the overpayments. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority did not consider that it was necessary to obtain a copy of the full phone interview transcript in order to determine whether the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair (as requested by the complainant)....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2017-485-71. 12 MBSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Paul Henry about Independence Day celebrations in the USA featured an interview with the USA’s Ambassador to New Zealand. Prior to the interview, Paul Henry referred to the USA claiming ‘its independence from England’. He later quoted Margaret Thatcher, referring to her as the ‘Prime Minister of England’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Henry’s statements were inaccurate and discriminatory in that he should have referred to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, rather than England. The item was focused primarily on Independence Day celebrations and the statements would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Face Off, a reality competition show in which the contestants are special effects make-up artists, screened during the animated movie Chicken Run. The Authority upheld a complaint that the promo breached standards of good taste and decency. The promo’s images of gory and wounded prosthetic body parts went beyond audience expectations of a G-rated family movie and were likely to distress child viewers. The Authority however did not agree that the images showed ‘violence’ or violent acts as envisaged by the violence standard. Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyNot Upheld: ViolenceOrder: Section 16(4) $500 costs to the CrownIntroduction[1] A promo for Face Off, a reality competition show in which the contestants are special effects make-up artists, screened during Chicken Run, an animated family movie which was rated G (for general audiences)....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story reported that Auckland purchasers of homes near areas of cultural significance for Māori may need to get consent from iwi before undertaking any structural building work, as part of the Auckland Unitary Plan. As an example of one of the areas of cultural significance, the presenter reported from an empty field, saying, ‘So this is what an area of cultural significance looks like. This is called a midden. . . it’s pretty much a rubbish dump. We looked it up – “midden” is an old Danish word for “domestic rubbish dump”’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item discriminated against and/or denigrated Māori and was unfair....

A complaint that an episode of The AM Show breached the balance standard was not upheld. The episode featured multiple segments that addressed various climate change related issues including interviews with a Fonterra representative about its sustainable farming practices, an interview with sailors Peter Burling and Blair Tuke about their marine conservation initiative ‘Live Ocean’ and a panel discussion about the recently founded Sustainable New Zealand Party. The Authority found that while climate change issues are controversial issues of public importance, none of the segments amounted to unbalanced discussions for the purposes of the standard. Not Upheld: Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold a complaint that statements made by Jesse Mulligan during a segment of The Project breached the accuracy standard. Mr Mulligan criticised National MP Judith Collins for retweeting a story in relation to changes to France’s child sex laws, stating the story was ‘made up’ and claiming Ms Collins was ‘learning that in 2018 you don't need to show people the truth’. The Authority found Mr Mulligan’s statements were statements of opinion and analysis and therefore the accuracy standard did not apply. In reaching the decision the Authority considered the context in which the comments were made, including the focus of the segment as a whole and audience expectations of The Project. Not Upheld: Accuracy The broadcast[1] A segment of The Project discussed National MP Judith Collins’ tweet of a story published by yournewswire....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The AM Show contained a number of items about Labour Party candidate Willie Jackson’s position on the recently released Labour Party candidate List (the List), and featured interviews with Labour Party leader Andrew Little and Willie Jackson. It was reported several times that Mr Jackson was disappointed with his position of 21 on the List, as Mr Little had ‘promised’ Mr Jackson a top-10 position. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was inaccurate and unfair. The segments amounted to robust political expression, which is of particular importance in the lead-up to a general election, and carried high value in terms of the right to freedom of expression. Viewers were likely to have understood the comments as political speculation, rather than definitive statements of fact, which is common in the context of political reporting....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of The Project featured an item about several aspects of the gun control debate in New Zealand, including the Police Association’s call to introduce a firearm registry and tighter restrictions on firearm ownership and importation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was materially inaccurate in relation to the number of firearms being legally imported every year into New Zealand. The Authority also found that it was not misleading to use Police Association survey statistics (rather than NZ Police data) in the broadcast as the source of the statistics was clearly identified....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on The Paul Henry Show featured a recent Police press release about a so-called tourist who had reportedly been driving with a kayak attached width-ways to the roof of his car. The presenter commented that the man was ‘a bloody twat’ and that his actions ‘pissed him off’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the presenter’s choice of language and his denigration of foreign tourists. In the context of a late-night programme and the presenter’s well-known style, the language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency and ‘foreign tourists’ are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

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. ]An episode of Re-Think featured a panel discussion about how to encourage people to care about, and take action on, climate change. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance because it did not present the view that climate change is natural and not caused by humans. The item was clearly framed from the outset as not delving into the controversial aspects of climate change or its causes, so viewers would not have expected a balanced debate about those issues. Rather, the programme brought the topic down to a community level and offered practical lifestyle tips....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four items on Newshub featured stories related to the United Kingdom and/or the British Royal Family. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the Newshub items and the reporters’ comments were biased, unfair and derogatory towards the United Kingdom and/or members of the British Royal Family. The Authority found that the news reports did not contain any material which discriminated against or denigrated any section of the community, or which could be said to be unfair to members of the British Royal Family. The items also did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which triggered the requirement for balancing perspectives to be given, and did not raise accuracy or programme information issues....