Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp the presenter Hilary Barry welcomed a temporary presenter, Matt Chisholm, who responded by saying ‘it’s bloody good to be here’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘bloody’ breached the good taste and decency standard, finding the use of the term in the context of this programme was not inappropriate or unnecessary. The Authority has consistently found this expression to be colloquial language commonly used as an exclamation in our society. The Authority noted that Seven Sharp is aimed at adult viewers and the expression was not intended to be aggressive or pejorative. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm by the use of this term did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the use of the term ‘bugger’ by weather presenter Dan Corbett during a broadcast of Seven Sharp. The Authority considered the term constituted low level coarse language which would not have offended a significant number of listeners in the context of the broadcast. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the inclusion of a clip during Seven Sharp of two people pitch invading or ‘streaking’, one of whom was in a wheelchair, breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. While the Authority acknowledged streaking is illegal at major sporting events, the streaking in the clip occurred at a club football match. The reason the clip was highlighted and presented in a positive light was because one of the streakers was in a wheelchair, which is not a typical occurrence, and because the clip had been shared around the world. Further, at the beginning of the clip the host explicitly commented ‘Pitch invasion is frowned upon these days. ’ In the circumstances, the Authority found the clip was unlikely to promote or encourage streaking. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on Seven Sharp breached the offensive and disturbing content standard by describing a driver who uses mobility car parks illegally as an “arsehole”. The Authority acknowledged some viewers may find it offensive but, in the context, found it unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or seriously violate widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

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. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a story about two local residents, labelled ‘herb detectives’, who were determined to track down the man they believed was responsible for stealing their herbs. The reporter and the ‘herb detectives’ visited the local market looking for the alleged thief and spoke to a woman, Shunfang Shen, who was selling herbs. The reporter asked Mrs Shen where her herbs were from, and one of the residents said, ‘It looked very much like my mint. ’ The Authority upheld a complaint from Mrs Shen that the action taken by TVNZ, in upholding her complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair, was insufficient. The Authority acknowledged that TVNZ attempted to remedy the breach of standards, including by broadcasting a correction several days after the item....

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....

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...

During a segment of Seven Sharp, hosts Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells competed in a ‘Steak Off’ to see who could barbecue the best steak. During the competition, Wells wore an apron with an image of a naked man’s torso on the front, with the genitals on the apron pixelated throughout the segment. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, finding it unlikely, in the context, to have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

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 did not uphold a complaint that a Seven Sharp item referring to Wilson Parking breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item covered a dispute between a carpark customer and Wilson Parking. A Fair Go consumer advocate also provided general advice to people about their rights in relation to parking fines. In the context of providing general information to viewers from a consumer advocacy perspective, the advice did not breach the accuracy standard. The Authority also found the broadcast did not breach the fairness standard. It noted that Wilson Parking had been given an opportunity to comment on the specific customer’s situation and, as a multinational company, could reasonably have been expected to be aware that the programme would use the specific situation to discuss the company’s wider operations. It could have expanded the statement provided to the broadcaster.   Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

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. . ....

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...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

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...