Search Rapua

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....

*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. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics and included an interview with Mr Hager. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the Seven Sharp host was biased and treated Mr Hager unfairly. The host’s comments were clearly his opinion, and Mr Hager was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forward his position. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp was introduced by the hosts, Mike Hosking and Toni Street, as follows: Hosking: So, question: are we shocked at what Nicky Hager has in his book, Dirty Politics? In a word, I think no. it is not the big exposé Hager claims it is; there is no smoking gun....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement by TVNZ’s Seven Sharp reporter that a film was set ‘amid a nationwide confiscation of Māori land’ during an interview with actor Temuera Morrison. The complainant alleged confiscations were not nationwide, and that Māori land dispossession can be attributed in part to legitimate land sales to the Crown. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material in the context of a segment focusing on Morrison’s acting career and promotion of a film, and that, in any case, it was not misleading to refer to ‘nationwide confiscation’ considering the extent of contested Māori land dispossession which occurred in the relevant period. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the couple's privacy as the information was already in the public domain at the time of broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown....

In an episode of Seven Sharp, journalist Laura Daniels presented regarding creating a European inspired holiday from within New Zealand, in the context of COVID-19 travel restrictions. It included a scene where she pretended to eat cigarettes from a plate. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast was inappropriate for children to watch and breached the children’s interests standard. Taking the contextual factors into account, in particular the audience expectations of Seven Sharp, the Authority found the segment was unlikely to adversely affect children. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During her ‘final word’ segment on Seven Sharp presenter Toni Street discussed her support for arming front-line police officers with tasers and mentioned the recent murder of Blessie Gotingco. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that her comments were inaccurate and misleading. Ms Street’s comments were clearly opinion which were exempt from standards of accuracy; she did not connect the use of tasers to Blessie Gotingco’s murder; and she did not make any statements of fact that were inaccurate or would have misled viewers. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During her ‘final word’ segment on an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Toni Street discussed her support for the recent move to arm front-line police officers with tasers. She said:Alright, according to our poll on tasers tonight. . . drumroll. . ....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Seven Sharp misrepresented the seriousness of coeliac disease. The segment, which was focused on the benefits and risks of being part of clinical trials to test new medicines, briefly showed a sign saying, ‘Coeliac Disease Leaving You Bloated? ’, with an image of a puffer fish, and noted those suffering from ‘bloat’ might consider signing up for a trial. The complainant considered comparing coeliac disease to ‘a bit of bloat’ was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority noted the broadcast did not describe the disease as ‘a bit of bloat’. The fleeting references to bloating as a symptom of coeliac disease were not material to the segment and would not have misled the audience to believe it was the only symptom, or the most serious symptom, of the disease. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority received a complaint about a promo for a scheduled programme Seven Sharp which was viewed on TVNZ’s Facebook page. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under s11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority acknowledged that it raised complex issues of jurisdiction arising from the online environment, which had not yet been determined by the Authority. Taking into account its assessment of the substance of the complaint, which it considered was unlikely to result in a finding of a breach of standards, the Authority declined to determine the complaint. Declined to determine: Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

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. ]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....

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)...

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 reporter’s statements about the referendum regarding the establishment of a Māori ward were inaccurate. While several of the reporter’s statements could be seen to conflate the issues about representation, the surrounding statements clarified what was being discussed so viewers would not have been misled. In the context of the item, these statements did not reach the threshold for breaching the accuracy standard....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Seven Sharp in which Hilary Barry made comments about the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and about ‘anti-vaxxers’, including suggesting those who do not want to be vaccinated could ‘jump on a ferry and go to the Auckland Islands for a few years, and then when we’ve got rid of COVID-19…come back’. The complaint alleged these comments breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards, by suggesting the safety of the vaccine was almost without question, and denigrating those with a different view. The Authority found Ms Barry’s comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. It found the broadcast did not address a controversial issue so the balance standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment depicting students cycling on a footpath. The complainant stated this was contrary to the Cycling Code. While acknowledging the depiction of potentially unlawful behaviour, the Authority found, in the context of the programme, the broadcast did not promote, glamorise, or condone breaking the law. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

The Authority has not upheld a good taste and decency complaint that the treatment of a clip showing a ‘devastating’ explosion in Lebanon was inappropriate in a segment rounding up ‘all the crazy, messed-up oddities’ of the week. The context and the importance of freedom of expression meant there was no harm justifying regulatory intervention in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency; Discrimination and Denigration...