Search

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – during interview with Kiwi actor, presenter commented “I was about as popular as a wet fart in a wedding dress” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was a brief, throwaway remark used to convey the meaning the presenter was unpopular – upholding complaint would be unreasonable limit on right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, the presenters interviewed a Kiwi actor. One of the presenters stated: I’ve actually got to make a confession right here and right now [laughter from actor]… what a bang-up geezer [name] is, because I did an interview with [name] about two weeks ago....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – instrumental excerpts from the song “Smack My Bitch Up” by Prodigy played in the background during item reporting on violence against women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcast not unacceptable in context and within broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – only viewers who knew the song would have recognised it from the instrumental excerpts – use of the instrumental excerpts did not undermine the important message of the segment but drew attention to, and raised awareness of, the issue – rhythm and tone of music fitted segment – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two items on Seven Sharp contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the items were inappropriate in a prime time news and current affairs slot. Both items were clearly intended to be humorous rather than titillating, and would not have been unduly offensive or unexpected for regular viewers, given the programme’s mix of serious news, banter and entertainment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] Two items on Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The first item, broadcast on 7 October 2013, included footage of a man’s YouTube parody of Miley Cyrus’ raunchy performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. The man was shown dancing provocatively around a toilet bowl wearing a bikini made out of glad-wrap....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp screened footage of an incident involving celebrity singer Beyoncé’s sister physically attacking Beyoncé’s husband in a lift. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item made light of the serious issue of violence or denigrated men. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence. Introduction[1] Seven Sharp screened footage of an incident involving Beyoncé’s sister physically attacking Beyoncé’s husband in a lift, that had attracted the attention of media worldwide. It was broadcast at 7pm on TV ONE on 13 May 2014. [2] Wayne Burrows complained that the hosts ‘made light of this serious issue laughing and joking about the violence’. He said that by laughing the presenters glamorised the violent behaviour, and because the violence was by a woman against a man, the laughter denigrated men....

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. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking made comments about the most recent report of the IPCC. The Authority did not uphold four complaints that his comments were misleading and irresponsible. The comments were clearly Mr Hosking’s opinion, and the right to freedom of speech explicitly protects expressions of opinion even if they are unpopular or incorrect. Mr Hosking is well known for this type of monologue where he offers his opinion on any number of issues, sometimes in a provocative manner....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Seven Sharp reported on the Russian government banning adoptions of its orphans by New Zealand couples, because of New Zealand’s marriage equality legislation. The reporter referred to Vladimir Putin as ‘homophobic’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate and misleading. The comment was clearly analysis and commentary by the reporter, rather than a material point of fact, so it was not subject to standards of accuracy. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction [1] A Seven Sharp item reported that the Russian government had banned adoptions of Russian children by New Zealand couples, because of New Zealand’s same-sex marriage legislation. The reporter referred to ‘old homophobic Vladimir Putin’. The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 3 July 2014. [2] Terry Wallbank complained that the reporter’s reference to Mr Putin as homophobic was inaccurate, biased and misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast of the personal views of certain celebrities who supported changing the flag resulted in an unbalanced and partial programme. While the item featured several celebrities in support of the alternative flag, it also mentioned some who supported the current flag. In the context of the item this was a sufficient acknowledgement of significant viewpoints on the issue. Furthermore, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the different perspectives on the flag referendum issue. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On an episode of Seven Sharp, the hosts discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and interviewed a law professor. The professor explained the contrast between the dispute resolution mechanisms of the TPP and those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After the interview, one host asked the other, ‘So these foreign countries could potentially hold the government for ransom down the track? Surely it goes both ways; surely we’ll have some control’. The other host replied, ‘Of course it does. Who did we take to the WTO? We’ve taken a number of countries to the WTO. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was misleading in that it suggested that TPP disputes would go through a similar process as the WTO, when in fact this was not the case for investor-state disputes....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s editorial comments following the item were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. In making its decision, the Authority acknowledged the influential position of the presenters, but found that alternative views were conveyed during the item and in subsequent items during the period of current interest. The presenters’ comments were their opinion and analysis of the issues discussed, rather than statements of fact, so they were not subject to the accuracy standard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed a five-week, outdoor ‘life skills’ camp held for high school students on Great Barrier Island. Footage of a sheep being restrained to be killed for food, the sheep’s dead body and blood, and the gutting of the sheep was shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the killing of the sheep was ‘brutal’ and unacceptable for broadcast. While the footage was graphic and would not have appealed to all viewers, it was adequately signposted during the item, which enabled viewers to exercise discretion and decide whether to continue watching. The actual killing of the sheep was not shown, and the footage appeared to show standard, accepted practices of killing animals for food in New Zealand....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the privacy of the child of the alleged cat killers. The accused were not named, shown, or otherwise identified in the item, so no individual, and specifically the child, could be linked to them, meaning the child was not ‘identifiable’ for the purposes of the privacy standard. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan after 30 cats went missing in past the year. A reporter travelled to Raglan and interviewed a local filmmaker who recently released a short documentary that aimed ‘to find out why it was happening and who was behind it’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed the case of a woman and an offensive message which was sent to her by a City Councillor. The road sign which was captured in the message read, ‘Jesus is cuming… open your mouth’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that showing the road sign during the segment was potentially offensive to Christians, in breach of the good taste and decency standard. The Authority acknowledged that people may find the wording of the sign offensive....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the usage of the word ‘root’ in a Seven Sharp item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority took into account the relevant contextual factors including the nature of the discussion, the nature of the programme and the audience expectations of the programme. The Authority did not consider that the use of the word threatened community norms of good taste and decency, or that any potential harm justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Seven Sharp regarding an advertisement by Fluoride Free NZ. Mark Atkin, on behalf of Fluoride Free NZ, complained that the programme was in breach of the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found that the segment did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance, as required for the balance standard to apply. The Authority also found that none of the points identified by the complainant were inaccurate. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a personal anecdote told by Seven Sharp presenter Jeremy Wells, describing the moment ‘Angela D’Audney sat on my desk as a 20-year-old in a leopard-print mini-skirt’. Stumbling over his words, Mr Wells then said, ‘see, it’s got me excited even thinking about it’. The complaint was that Mr Wells: outlined sexually inappropriate conduct against a female coworker; undermined and demeaned his female coworkers; and by saying it on national television, normalised and condoned sexual discrimination in the workplace. The Authority acknowledged Mr Wells’ choice of anecdote was ill-advised and inappropriate and that it may have offended some people. However it emphasised that in itself is not sufficient to find a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration. There is a high threshold for finding a breach, in light of the important right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed the UK’s move to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040, to encourage the use electric vehicles (EVs). Following the item, presenter Mike Hosking outlined the ‘hurdles’ to be overcome before a similar move could be made in New Zealand, stating that there was ‘no charging network’ in New Zealand and that the cost of EVs was ‘too high’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Hosking’s statements were inaccurate and misleading. Noting that the accuracy standard does not apply to statements of analysis, comment or opinion, the Authority found that, in this case, Mr Hosking’s statements on the cost-effectiveness of EVs, and the lack of charging network in New Zealand, represented his own opinion and analysis on the topic, which viewers would not have expected to be authoritative....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards, about an episode of Seven Sharp. The clip complained about was a joke that did not contain any profane or sexually explicit material. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial and did not warrant consideration. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard....