Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld complaints about a Breakfast interview with Labour MP Tangi Utikere. During the interview, Utikere was asked about reports of a ‘leaker’ within the Labour caucus, and was repeatedly questioned on whether he himself was the leaker. The complainants alleged the interview amounted to bullying and denigrated Utikere. The Authority acknowledged the questioning was sustained, but was within the scope of the type of questioning expected of a politician, particularly in the lead up to an election, and the broadcast was not in breach of the fairness standard (with respect to treatment of Utikere or former Minister Kiritapu Allan). The balance and discrimination standards were either not applicable or not breached.   Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

SummaryThe word "Poms" was used on Breakfast broadcast on TV One on 23 December 1998 at 7. 00am in reference to the English cricket team which was touring Australia. Mr and Mrs Whitmore complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "pom" was without doubt racial discrimination. They asserted that no other race was belittled in the same way, and noted that the remark was often used in association with a report of a losing sporting performance. TVNZ responded that in its view the word did not carry the offensive connotations which the complainants attached to it. It was, TVNZ argued, a term used affectionately by residents of New Zealand and Australia. It noted that the issue had already been before the Authority which had concluded that the term did not breach broadcasting standards. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – news item reported on death of motorcyclist on racing track – included footage of the accident – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was brief and shot from a distance – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at approximately 7. 05am on Monday 6 September, reported on the death of a motorcyclist. The news reader stated, “In sport, there’s been an horrific death in the 250cc section of the Moto GP in San Marino. Japanese rider Shoya Tomizawa on the red bike was killed after being hit by two others in this incident. The other two riders escaped serious injury....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Breakfast stating ‘20 million tonnes of plastic waste’ was being exported each year breached the accuracy standard. The figure was accepted as inaccurate (with an estimate of 35,000 tonnes more likely). However, in the context of an item focussed on a petition to address the harm caused to other countries as a result of New Zealand’s large-scale plastic waste exports, the Authority found it was unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that featuring Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam as an interviewee on Breakfast breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The complainant considered the choice of interviewee was harmful to people affected by Tam and gang-related crime. The Authority found the interview did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard, noting it was not a breach of broadcasting standards to include Tam purely on the basis of his background as a gang member. It further found no breach of the balance standard as the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives on the issue being discussed during the interview. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about "virtually blind" producer – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's comments were light-hearted and intended to be humorous – directed at one individual rather than blind people in general – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 April 2009, the hosts apologised for a noise that had occurred in the background while the news was being read. One host explained that the noise was caused by the executive producer "who's virtually blind". The host elaborated, mimicking the producer trying to read viewers' faxes, and also making a lot of noise taking a plate to the hosts as he could not see the table....

During Breakfast, a news presenter laughed before introducing a report regarding Remembrance Sunday. The Authority found this did not breach the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the laughter was clearly directed at another presenter sneezing on-air, not at the story, and would not have caused audiences undue offence or distress, or undermined widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

In a segment on Breakfast, the hosts tried out a ‘Bug-A-Salt’; a device in the shape of a firearm which shoots granules of salt to kill flies and other bugs. As part of the segment, the hosts did some ‘target practice’ on a Donald Trump ‘troll doll,’ shooting it down twice. The Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour broadcasting standards. While the Authority found the segment pushed the boundaries of acceptable humour, in the context of the broadcast, including the comedic and light-hearted tone, the focus on the effectiveness of the Bug-A-Salt rather than Trump, and the lack of malicious intent, it found it was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Breakfast segment breached the accuracy standard through its reporting on a study by RMIT and Monash Universities. The study found low carbohydrate diets may increase a person’s risk of developing type two diabetes by 20% because people often replace the carbohydrates with unhealthy fats. The complainant considered statements in the broadcast that low carbohydrate diets can increase the risk of developing type two diabetes were wrong and misleading; that the programme inappropriately pushed whole grains and fruit as a better choice compared to healthy fats, red meat, and dairy; and the researcher’s comments regarding the Atkins diet and the results of the study were unreliable. The Authority found the relevant statements would not have misled viewers in the context and it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on the accuracy of the study and the researcher’s comments. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an interview on Breakfast. In a discussion concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s State of the Nation speech, the host stated to ACT Party Deputy Leader Brooke van Velden ‘You mentioned that, division was from the previous Government. I mean, come on, you look at the Treaty of Waitangi. You must be able to read the room in terms of how the nation is feeling towards that Bill by your party. ’ The complainant considered the host’s implication that this division was caused by ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that the question was comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with John Key – presenter’s comments – allegedly in breach of balance Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast was broadcast on TV One on the morning of Wednesday 4 June 2008 between 6. 30am and 9am. At approximately 7. 15am, one of the hosts, Paul Henry, interviewed the Leader of the Opposition, John Key. This was a weekly exchange used to balance Paul Henry’s Monday morning weekly discussions with the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. [2] In the 4 June segment, Mr Key and the host discussed the possibility of a National coalition with the Green Party....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about a celebrity’s breasts, “Get your girls out” – in another segment host referred to music album, “Sex on Fire”, before stating, “Gonorrhoea anyone? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments not to everyone’s taste but would not have offended regular Breakfast viewers – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at approximately 7. 30am on Tuesday 19 October 2010, reported on a well-known New Zealand jeweller who had enlisted the help of an international celebrity to boost his publicity while promoting a competition in New York....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented on prisoners being handed over to Afghan security forces – "does anyone care if we put drills through the heads of these people" and "we need to get out the Stanley knives" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were provocative and hyperbolic but intended to stimulate discussion – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on Tuesday 17 August 2010, presenter Paul Henry interviewed TVNZ's political editor on recent events in Afghanistan....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – segments concerning police shooting of innocent bystander – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – views of the police were put forward by interviewees and viewer feedback – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 6. 50am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Monday 26 January 2009, one of the hosts interviewed the New Zealand Police Association President, Greg O’Connor, following a fatal shooting by the Armed Offenders Squad of an innocent man the previous Friday. The host asked Mr O’Connor whether it was reasonable at this time to question the actions of the police officers involved. Mr O’Connor responded: . . . it’s an absolute tragedy and we have got nothing but sympathy for that family. . . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – news items discussed identity of a deceased teenager, despite being informed in the programme that police were not releasing the deceased’s name in accordance with a request from his family – disclosure of deceased’s identity allegedly in breach of his family’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – deceased’s family identified through their connection with him – no private facts revealed because deceased’s identity had already been disclosed on social networking sites so was in the public realm, even if not officially confirmed by police – broadcaster took steps, as soon as reasonably practicable, to ensure the deceased was not named again in the programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....