Search Rapua

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Various items on Breakfast featured a weather reporter providing weather forecasts from Airbnb accommodation, as part of a competition for viewers to win Airbnb vouchers. During the items, the reporter interviewed three New Zealanders who rented out their accommodation through Airbnb, as well as an Airbnb representative, about the service. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these items failed to cover key information about Airbnb, resulting in inaccurate and unbalanced broadcasts that were also in breach of the law and order standard. The items were in the nature of advertorials, being programme content that was not news, current affairs, or factual programming to which the accuracy and balance standards applied....

ComplaintBreakfast – Social commentator’s pre-Christmas reference to Jesus Christ as "a Middle Eastern carpenter who owned nothing" – insensitive and offensive to Christians FindingsStandard 6 and Guideline 6g – satire – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Comments made on Breakfast between 7. 00–9. 00am by a social commentator, Joe Bennett, were broadcast on TV One on Friday 13 December 2002. During the programme, Joe Bennett expressed the view that Jesus Christ was "a Middle Eastern carpenter who owned nothing". [2] Colleen Pollard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the timing and nature of the commentary was both insensitive and offensive to Christians....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about two Breakfast interviews discussing the Government’s decision to reduce New Zealand’s methane emissions target – first with the Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action, then 45 minutes later with New Zealand Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon. The complaint was that the interview approaches varied between the two interviewees, creating an ‘unfairness and imbalance’ for viewers. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard as significant perspectives were presented within the broadcast and both interviewees had ample opportunity to explain their positions. Further, the style and type of questions raised in each interview were a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

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....

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....

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....

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. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

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...

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 an interview on Breakfast with a public health researcher regarding the potentially carcinogenic properties of glyphosate, an ingredient in commonly available and widely used weed killers. The Authority found there was no breach of the balance standard as viewers would have been sufficiently aware of the existence of alternate views (both from the programme itself and from other reporting within the period of current interest) and that the accuracy standard did not apply as the relevant statements were analysis and opinion. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

ComplaintBreakfast – reference to song "Loyal" – presenter said viewers who disliked that song were "stuffed" – vulgar – offensive language FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The presenter used the phrase "If you don’t like that song, then you’re stuffed" when referring to the song "Loyal" played after a magazine item on the Louis Vuitton Cup for yachting. The item was included in the programme, Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am on 19 November 2002. [2] Dr McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the expression was vulgar and unacceptable in a news programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter’s comment about people who have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – 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 9 June 2008, the two presenters, Pippa Wetzell and Paul Henry, had an impromptu discussion about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) at approximately 8am. Mr Henry shared a story with Ms Wetzell and viewers about an ex-colleague of his who suffered from OCD, which took the form of a need to “count the pillars” while on his journey to work in the morning. Mr Henry then commented: He was a crazy freak, like all Obsessive Compulsive people are....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A short news item during Breakfast reported that the body of a German hostage, who had been beheaded by militants in the Philippines, had been recovered. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item depicted a ‘severed head’, which was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast, especially during a time when children were likely to be watching television. In the context of a very brief news report, the item would not have exceeded audience expectations and would not have unduly offended or disturbed viewers. The content shown was not graphic or at a level which required a warning to be given, and the story carried public interest....