Search

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on 1News covering a Hobson’s Pledge campaign against bilingual road signage. The complaint was that the coverage was biased and unfair by suggesting feedback using the Hobson’s Pledge template was ‘bad’, trying to influence how people gave feedback, and only interviewing members of the public in support of bilingual signage. The Authority found the broadcaster provided sufficient balance and the item was not unfair, as Hobson’s Pledge was given an opportunity to comment, and its position was adequately presented in the item. The complaint did not identify any inaccurate statement or reasons why the item was inaccurate, and the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with an Israeli soldier on Morning Report breached several standards. The complainant alleged statements made by the interviewee were inaccurate, discriminated against Palestinians and Middle Eastern people, and were offensive and disturbing and unbalanced. The Authority found that the statements of the interviewee were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply and, if not, the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The Authority also found the comments were not directed at Palestinians and Middle Eastern people and were, in any event, serious comment, analysis or opinion to which the discrimination and denigration standard does not apply; the comments did not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency; and the interview did not breach the balance standard noting it was clearly signalled as presented from a particular perspective....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that an episode of Jeremy Kyle, a talk show dealing with relationship breakdowns between guests, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant’s objections related to the nature of the series in general, rather than specific content in this episode. While elements could have caused discomfort or distress for viewers, the episode was consistent with audience expectations of the talk show genre, was rated PGR and was broadcast at a time when AO programmes are permitted, during the school term, so children were unlikely to be watching....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A participant on 'The Panel' during Afternoons with Jim Mora made comments about men wolf whistling at women, such as 'bring back the wolf whistle', 'a whistle is not harassment', 'a lot of women are the ones that haven't been whistled at, that have got a problem with it' and 'we are the peacocks, you guys are the ones that look at us'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast condoned and encouraged sexual harassment of women, as the panellist's comments were clearly her own opinion and did not reach the level of offensiveness required to find a breach of the relevant standards....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the song Why Won’t You Give Me Your Love breached broadcasting standards. The complaint was that the song lyrics described an ‘intention to stalk, kidnap, imprison and rape’ and the song was inappropriate to broadcast in the afternoon. The Authority determined that the song’s satirical nature and upbeat style reduced the potential for the darker tone of the lyrics to cause harm. The song was within audience expectations for the eclectic music selection of the host programme, Matinee Idle and, taking into account the context of the broadcast, the lyrics did not undermine widely shared community standards and would not have unduly harmed child listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from 20 complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host questioned the teachings of a deceased Sikh religious figure by posing hypothetical questions about how he and his widow, now also deceased, had children. The host implied that, given the leader’s teachings about celibacy, his widow and other family members must have had sex with animals. The complainants alleged that this discussion breached the privacy of the individuals referred to, and was degrading and humiliating. The Authority acknowledged that the segment was in poor taste, but found that the broadcast was not in breach of the standards raised by the complainants....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jeremy Wells' 'Like Mike' skit on the Hauraki Breakfast show, in which he parodied radio and television presenter Mike Hosking, Mr Wells made various comments about Māori people and Stewart Islanders. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were racist, offensive and degraded Māori and Stewart Islanders. The item was clearly satirical and intended to be humorous, and was consistent with audience expectations of the programme and the radio station. As satire, the item did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Māori or Stewart Islanders and this form of speech is a legitimate and important exercise of the right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

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 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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment of Overnight Talk breached several standards. In the programme, a caller to the show queried the validity of the host’s statement that 1400 Israelis had died in the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, and asked what evidence the host had of the attack. The host’s response included suggesting the caller should not be ‘an idiot’, saying he was not going to waste his time, terminating the call and advising the caller that they could see ‘uncensored footage’ of the attack on the ‘deepest, darkest parts of the internet’ if they needed evidence....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in? ’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News about a spate of dog attacks in South Auckland. During the item’s introduction, an image of a black and white dog was depicted behind the presenter. The complainant said the image was of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (‘Staffy) and its use may erroneously ‘encourage viewers to be fearful of Staffies, maybe even encouraging mistreatment’. The Authority found use of the image would not have caused viewers to fear or mistreat Staffies. The item did not suggest certain dog breeds are dangerous. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that reality show Naked and Afraid, broadcast after 9pm on Rush, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, a man and woman are left in a remote location naked and with few tools, with the goal to survive for 21 days. With reference to previous decisions on similar programmes, the Authority found the complaint should not be determined as it has consistently not upheld complaints concerning adult-oriented content on late night television when tools aiding choice and control are available. Further, the complaint concerned the complainant’s personal preferences and such complaints are not, in general, capable of being resolved by this complaints process. Decline to Determine: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on The Project discussing whether nurses who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 should return to the workforce given staff shortages. The complainant stated the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, as well as other standards, as it encouraged division in Aotearoa New Zealand and the presenters’ comments were ‘uncalled for and unfair’. The Authority found the comments reflected the presenters’ opinions and were unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or otherwise undermine widely shared community standards. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard in relation to comments about a celebrity dining at an Indian restaurant on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The complaint alleged comments made by the host were racist, including questioning how a $97,000 bill could be possible at an Indian restaurant and questioning the choice to go there. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required for a breach of the standard.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...