Search Rapua

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an item on Nine to Noon breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, due to a presenter using the expression ‘effing annoying’ when describing a character in a book review. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine this complaint.   Declined to Determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a political commentator’s use of the phrase ‘not piss … them off too much’ when discussing Coalition Government tensions. The complainant argued the phrase was offensive. In light of the Authority’s Complaints that are unlikely to succeed guidance and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine this complaint.   Declined to Determine (section 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 — in all the circumstances, the complaint should not be determined):  Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

A complaint that a segment on Checkpoint that discussed vaccinations was inaccurate was not upheld by the Authority. WAVESnz complained that several statements made by Professor John Fraser during the segment regarding the safety of vaccinations and the contents of vaccines were inaccurate and misleading. The Authority noted that it was not its role to determine the scientific accuracy of Professor Fraser’s statements. It found, however, that RNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast, taking into account a number of factors including Professor Fraser’s reputation and the lack of any reason to question the accuracy of the views expressed by Professor Fraser. The Authority did not identify any real or potential harm and therefore found any restriction on RNZ’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

ComplaintNine to Noon – offensive language – "nigger" FindingsPrinciple 1 – context – used to explain another word’s offensiveness – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The word "nigger" was used by presenter Kim Hill in Nine to Noon broadcast on National Radio on 3 May 2000 just after 11. 00am. John Lowe complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word was unacceptable and unnecessary on public radio, and breached the good taste and decency standard. RNZ explained that the word arose in the context of a discussion about the origin of the word "munted" which had apparently been used on the programme earlier that day. According to a fax received from a South African listener, the word "munted" had the same derogatory meaning as "nigger"....

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 direct privacy complaint about an interview on Morning Report following the stabbing of an Auckland dairy worker. The interviewee (the local Neighbourhood Support Coordinator) speculated about who the victim could be and gave information about the living arrangements of the family who operated the dairy. The Authority did not find any breach of the privacy standard in relation to the victim’s family, on the basis the information disclosed did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. It noted in any event that the identity of the victim was officially confirmed soon after, and reporting on the circumstances surrounding the stabbing carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards about an interviewee saying, on Midday Report, Foreign Affairs Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters was ‘touching himself instead of doing a real job of caring for New Zealanders in difficulty’. Noting the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures, the Authority found the brief comment would not have left listeners with an unfairly negative impression of Peters. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with Dame Jacinda Ardern on RNZ National, in which presenter Jesse Mulligan used the word ‘prick’ when asking Ardern about a past comment she made in Parliament. The complaint alleged the use of this language breached multiple standards. The Authority found it was low-level language that would not have surprised or offended most listeners in the context or alarmed or distressed any children who happened to be listening. The remaining standards did not apply.   Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal and Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

ComplaintNational Radio – Saturday Morning programme – host referred to rock band as "miserable buggers" – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in Principle 1 Principle 1 – language did not refer to anal intercourse or bestiality – acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Saturday Morning programme broadcast on National Radio on 28 July 2001, the host described a rock band as the most "miserable buggers" he had ever seen. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "bugger" was contrary to good taste and decency. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, RNZ noted that the Authority's research showed that almost three-quarters of those interviewed considered the word "bugger" to be acceptable....

Summary Monica Lewinsky was interviewed by Kim Hill on National Radio on 15 March 1999 just after 9. 00am, following the release of the book which dealt with her relationship with President Clinton. Simon Boyce of Paraparaumu complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that one of the interviewer’s questions was unfortunate and inappropriate. He maintained that the interviewer had a history of asking her guests sexually explicit and intimate questions which were clearly embarrassing. In his view, this interview breached standards R2 and R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. RNZ responded that in the context of an interview with Ms Lewinsky, the language used had not breached the requirement to observe standards of good taste and decency....

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint concerning a Morning Report interview with the Problem Gambling Foundation’s Director of Advocacy and Public Health. The interview discussed a new secondary school programme aimed at educating young people about the risk of developing problem gambling habits from playing video games, referring in particular to ‘loot boxes’ in gaming which often cost real money. The interviewee’s statement alleged to be inaccurate was, ‘We know around the world that a lot of countries have banned loot boxes…’ which the complainant said was incorrect as only one country – Belgium – has banned loot boxes. The Authority found in the context of the full five-minute interview, which focused on the importance of educating young people about the dangers associated with gaming and risk of developing problem gambling habits, this statement was not a material point of fact. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – item reported on “An Anglican Minister who has been suspended after he removed children from a youth camp… to protect them from a man he believed was a sexual predator” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not have a sufficient foundation for broadcasting serious allegations – broadcaster did not provide any details about corroborating evidence to support allegations – church was provided with a fair opportunity to comment but the item failed to adequately present the church’s response – church and Bishop treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Authority not in a position to determine whether impression of alleged offending was misleading – matters more appropriately addressed as issues of fairness – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of…...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on Insight that investigated the history and current state of far-right, alt-right and nationalist ideologies breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found the broadcast was balanced as it contained a range of significant perspectives. The Authority also found people who hold these ideologies do not amount to an ‘organisation’ for the purposes of the fairness standard and therefore that the fairness standard does not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with a woman concerning her removal from an anti-co-governance meeting on Morning Report breached the balance, fairness and accuracy standards. The complainant alleged the broadcaster should have included balancing comment from, or interviewed Julian Batchelor (the speaker at the event concerned). The Authority found the interview did not require balancing comment as it did not ‘discuss’ the issue of co-governance, and did not treat Batchelor unfairly. The woman’s removal alone did not constitute a controversial issue of public importance. The accuracy standard did not apply as the complainant did not allege any statements were misleading. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on The Detail that discussed Auckland Council efforts to monitor and improve the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches. The complaint was that the item failed to present alternative views, or test or challenge the views presented by Auckland Council representatives. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of information on the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches, and the broadcast approached the issue from a particular perspective, not purporting to be a balanced examination of the adequacy of Auckland Council efforts. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was a breach of broadcasting standards for an expert interviewee to suggest the anti-mask/anti-vaccination movement was behind bomb threats made to several New Zealand schools. The Authority found that while the issue of who was responsible constituted a controversial issue of public importance, the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, so the balance standard was not breached. It also found that anti-mask/anti-vaccination advocates are not groups to which the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...