Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

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 declined to determine a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on the New Zealand economy breached the accuracy standard. The complainant considered the focus of the item should have been on GDP growth, but was instead framed around wealth inequality, and was otherwise misleading through the omission of other details. The Authority considered these were issues of personal preference and editorial discretion, which cannot be resolved through the complaints process. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of So Dumb its Criminal broadcast at 9. 30pm on Duke breached the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast, hosted by Snoop Dogg, featured a panel of Black comedians commenting on clips of criminals making ‘dumb’ mistakes. The commentary by the panel included multiple uses of the n-word, jokes about white people and ‘white privilege’, and what appeared to be a reference to a fictional kung fu character when describing one of the people featured. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the n-word, it noted this word has been ‘reclaimed’ by the communities affected by it, and was used in the broadcast by Black comedians joking amongst themselves....

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. An item on 1 News reporting on a mass shooting in Buffalo, US, showed an edited clip from the attacker’s livestream video. The clip, approximately 16 seconds long and without audio, showed the masked attacker driving into the supermarket carpark, stopping his vehicle, getting out of the car and raising a gun. The complaint alleged the broadcast of the clip breached the good taste and decency, violence, and law and order broadcasting standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

The Authority has upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement, ‘the Government's shiny new Investment Boost scheme allows businesses to claim back 20% off their tax bill when purchasing new assets’, in a 1News item reporting on features of Budget 2025. The complaint concerned an inaccurate reference to deductions being from the ‘tax bill’ of a business rather than its ‘taxable income’. The Authority found the statement overstated the tax savings available under the Investment Boost scheme which was a material error in the context. As the correct information was readily available to TVNZ, it also found reasonable efforts were not made to ensure accuracy. Upheld: Accuracy No order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 1News about Oranga Tamariki-run bootcamps breached the balance standard. The complainant considered the 1News reporter’s attitude, questioning and body language evidenced a ‘left bias’ and ‘a fair representation of the story’ was not given. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as the broadcast presented sufficient viewpoints and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of additional perspectives from other media coverage. The Authority noted the standard does not direct how questions should be asked or require news to be presented without bias. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a comment made during live coverage of a Black Caps cricket match breached the discrimination and denigration standard for ridiculing mental health/illness – and, by extension, people with mental illness. Commentator Scotty Stevenson said, ‘Built on the site of a former asylum, Otago Boys’ High School. Having met some of the old boys, don't think much has changed. ’ The Authority recognised that while some may view the comment as insensitive and inappropriate, the comment did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. The broadcast was unlikely to encourage the different treatment of those with mental illness to their detriment, nor devalue their reputation. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Sunday concerning the increasing population of wallabies in New Zealand was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority found that the balance standard did not apply as the segment did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The Authority also found that the reference to wallabies as an ‘Aussie pest’ did not amount to a material inaccuracy as it was unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

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...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a Tui Brewery event, the “drought shout”, organised to boost morale of farmers struggling through droughts – allegedly in breach of liquor promotion standard Findings Standard 11 (liquor promotion) – broadcast amounted to liquor promotion but was not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 10 April 2008, looked at the impact of a drought from Waikato to Canterbury which had left the farming community struggling. In a bid to improve morale, the Tui Brewery and several agricultural suppliers put on a “drought shout” for farmers. [2] Part of the item looked at the story of one farmer and how he was struggling to cope with the drought....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-097 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN FOWLIE of Paeroa Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-058 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR GLYN THOMAS of Palmerston North TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog” – alleged frequent use of the word “fuck” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 23 September 2005. During the introductory sequence, the host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog”. Complaint [2] Malcolm Anderson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference to “wanking off a dog” was disgusting, and in breach of good taste and decency....

The majority of the Authority upheld (in part) a complaint about a segment on Marae discussing the bounds of the right to freedom of expression, in the wake of Posie Parker’s ‘Let Women Speak’ events. The complaint argued the segment was unbalanced, disproportionately favouring views of participants against the events, and inaccurate in multiple respects. The Authority found the segment adequately presented significant viewpoints through the inclusion of multiple guests, through the host’s questioning and in the introductory segment. The Authority considered most of the alleged inaccuracies were unlikely to have significantly affected viewers’ understanding of the broadcast as a whole. The majority found one of the comments in the broadcast (relating to the characterisation of Parker) was materially inaccurate and this issue created harm sufficient to justify a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. Upheld by Majority: Accuracy, Not Upheld: Balance No Order...