Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter referred to Tip Top ice cream competition and informed viewers how to enter – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – segment did not threaten objectives behind “responsible programming” – promotions of this nature are now commonplace – Broadcasting Act and standards as written do not contemplate this type of segment or give authority to address these issues – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching, in the manner envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During a segment on Breakfast, the presenter referred to a ‘Feel Tip Top Giveaway’ competition....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about "virtually blind" producer – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's comments were light-hearted and intended to be humorous – directed at one individual rather than blind people in general – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 April 2009, the hosts apologised for a noise that had occurred in the background while the news was being read. One host explained that the noise was caused by the executive producer "who's virtually blind". The host elaborated, mimicking the producer trying to read viewers' faxes, and also making a lot of noise taking a plate to the hosts as he could not see the table....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters had several light-hearted discussions about the Pope – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – presenters did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenters’ comments distinguishable from points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not denigrate the Pope or Catholics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7am on Tuesday 26 February 2008, the presenters, Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell, and the newsreader, Peter Williams, had a jovial discussion about the current Pope and what he had been doing recently....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented with reference to ACT MP David Garrett, “He is a complete waster....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with John Key – presenter’s comments – allegedly in breach of balance Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast was broadcast on TV One on the morning of Wednesday 4 June 2008 between 6. 30am and 9am. At approximately 7. 15am, one of the hosts, Paul Henry, interviewed the Leader of the Opposition, John Key. This was a weekly exchange used to balance Paul Henry’s Monday morning weekly discussions with the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. [2] In the 4 June segment, Mr Key and the host discussed the possibility of a National coalition with the Green Party....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensiveSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an interview on Breakfast about a proposed cull of Himalayan tahr, the Minister of Conservation, Hon Eugenie Sage, appeared to use the word ‘cunters’ when referring to the educational effort undertaken by tahr hunters. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the Minister’s use of this word during this interview breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The use of the word was an accidental slip of the tongue and it was clear that the Minister intended to refer to ‘hunters’ during this section of the interview. The use of the word was not deliberate nor was it used with any malice or invective....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Breakfast bulletin reported that Auckland's Okahu Bay would be closed to the public for one day due to a private event held by local iwi Ngāti Whātua Orākei. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, unfair and encouraged discrimination by omitting the views of Ngāti Whātua and implying their actions were 'wrong'. It would have been preferable to include comment from Ngāti Whātua in the initial broadcast, and by failing to fully explain why Okahu Bay was closed, viewers could have been left with an ill-informed, negative view of Ngāti Whātua. However comment was included in later TVNZ broadcasts the same day which mitigated any potential unfairness. Nothing in the item encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Ngāti Whātua and/or Māori....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Breakfast, in which the hosts and viewer feedback discussed people stealing at supermarket self-service checkouts by putting in the wrong code for items they are purchasing. The Authority found the programme did not actively encourage viewers to steal or break the law in breach of the law and order standard. Across the programme as a whole, the hosts and viewers offered a range of views on the ethics of stealing at self-checkouts, including strong views against such behaviour, and clearly acknowledged it was ‘theft’ and illegal. The tone of the discussion was consistent with audience expectations of Breakfast and its hosts, and would not have unduly offended or distressed viewers, so the good taste and decency standard was also not breached....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a segment on Breakfast where John Campbell interviewed technology commentator Paul Brislen about the alleged potential health effects of the rollout of the 5G cellular network breached the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found that, considering the clear perspective of the broadcast and the ongoing media coverage of the 5G rollout, audiences had sufficient information to enable them to make reasoned decisions about 5G. The Authority noted that it was not its role to determine the scientific accuracy of Mr Brislen’s statements and ultimately found that TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure their accuracy. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Breakfast, in which the phrase ‘he rooted my missus’ was read out on air, breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that while the phrase was coarse and may have offended some viewers, the term ‘rooted’ was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. Overall, the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyThe broadcast[1] During an episode of Breakfast presenter Jack Tame read out some viewer feedback which included the phrase ‘he rooted my missus’. Other presenters on the show were shocked, laughed and said, ‘you can’t read that....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the phrase ‘how the hell’ in an item on Breakfast breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found the use of the word would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community values. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a discussion on Breakfast, about controversial comments made by Israel Folau, was in breach of the balance broadcasting standard. During the discussion, weather reporter, Matty McLean, gave his opinion on the comments, saying that he found them to be harmful. The Authority recognised that Mr Folau’s comments sparked ongoing public debate about the right to freedom of expression and harm. The discussion on Breakfast therefore amounted to discussion of a controversial issue of public importance under the standard. However, the Authority considered Mr McLean was clearly expressing his opinion on the issue and was entitled to do so, given Breakfast’s well-established programme format which includes the hosts expressing their views on current events....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback regarding Fiji’s involvement in Pacific Islands Forum – made comment “you ungrateful swine” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comment directed at Fijian leaders – not a section of the community to which standard applied – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on the morning of 5 August 2010, two MPs were invited onto the programme to discuss New Zealand’s involvement in the Pacific Islands Forum; a topical issue because the 41st leaders meeting was at that time being held in Vanuatu....

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an interview on Breakfast, presenter Hilary Barry and Hon Julie Anne Genter, Minister for Women, discussed the gender pay gap in New Zealand, the Minister’s views on possible causes of the pay gap, and what the Government intended to do to close the gap in the public and private sectors. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the discussion was unbalanced because it did not present alternative perspectives on the existence of the gender pay gap, or its causes. The Authority did not consider the item amounted to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, noting there is evidence available that the gender pay gap exists, and the item did not purport to be an in-depth examination of the causes....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview between Indira Stewart and Hon Judith Collins as part of Breakfast’s ‘weekly check-in’ with the Leader of the Opposition breached the balance and accuracy standards. While acknowledging the robust and heated nature of the interview, the Authority found that as the segment was an interview with the Leader of the Opposition, and provided her with the opportunity to respond at length, the balance standard was not breached. Further, while the complainant considered Stewart’s line of questioning and comments to be uninformed and inaccurate, the Authority found that these were not ‘statements of fact’ to which the accuracy standard applied. Not Upheld: Balance and Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Breakfast in which co-host John Campbell used the word ‘dick’ three times in reference to Donald Trump Jr. The complaint was that this pejorative use of the term ‘dick’ denigrated those, including vulnerable children, with the surname ‘Dick’, and subjected them to ridicule. The Authority acknowledged people with that surname may be more sensitive to its use in general, in broadcasting. However, it found Mr Campbell was referring specifically to Donald Trump Jr and most viewers would have interpreted it as meaning ‘a stupid or contemptible person’ – a widely understood and generally acceptable use of the term. On this basis, the Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread offence to the general audience, or harm to children....