Search Rapua

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about the joking and flirtatious interactions between two males on a Breakfast programme segment. The Authority considered the complaint related to matters of personal preference and was not an appropriate use of its time and resources. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about how people use public toilets – discussed how the news presenter's mother used to help him go to the toilet when he was a child – talked about suction toilets on trains in America – 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 – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 20 April 2009, the hosts referred to a germ expert who had been interviewed earlier in the programme. This led one of the hosts to talk about the different methods people use to avoid germs in public toilets....

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 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...

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....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Breakfast segment breached the accuracy standard through its reporting on a study by RMIT and Monash Universities. The study found low carbohydrate diets may increase a person’s risk of developing type two diabetes by 20% because people often replace the carbohydrates with unhealthy fats. The complainant considered statements in the broadcast that low carbohydrate diets can increase the risk of developing type two diabetes were wrong and misleading; that the programme inappropriately pushed whole grains and fruit as a better choice compared to healthy fats, red meat, and dairy; and the researcher’s comments regarding the Atkins diet and the results of the study were unreliable. The Authority found the relevant statements would not have misled viewers in the context and it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on the accuracy of the study and the researcher’s comments. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that the host of Breakfast had been "complicit in facilitating and allowing disparaging and racist remarks" to be made about Māori during an interview with child advocate Christine Rankin about the high rate of child abuse in New Zealand. The complainant said the host's "grossly offensive" questions had created the impression that only Māori abuse and kill their children, breaching standards of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Ms Rankin’s comments were not intended to disparage Māori but to call "for action on child abuse among Māori who are significantly over-represented in child abuse statistics". She had clearly stated that it was not just Māori who were abusing their children. The broadcaster said the host's questions had forced Ms Rankin to balance her comments....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host said that obese children “should be taken away from their parents and put in a car compactor” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the beginning of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 3 February 2009, the programme’s presenters outlined the upcoming items for the day. One host stated, “should obese children be taken away from their parents? That is what Australian experts are suggesting – well, some of them anyway. We’ll wade into the debate after 7”....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – news items discussed identity of a deceased teenager, despite being informed in the programme that police were not releasing the deceased’s name in accordance with a request from his family – disclosure of deceased’s identity allegedly in breach of his family’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – deceased’s family identified through their connection with him – no private facts revealed because deceased’s identity had already been disclosed on social networking sites so was in the public realm, even if not officially confirmed by police – broadcaster took steps, as soon as reasonably practicable, to ensure the deceased was not named again in the programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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. ]In a ‘Showbiz news’ segment on MORE FM Breakfast, a joke was made about the marriage breakup of Kim Dotcom and his wife. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the joke breached standards of good taste and decency. It was light-hearted and humorous and typical of breakfast radio, and the Dotcoms could reasonably expect some coverage of their breakup. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] In the ‘Showbiz news’ segment on MORE FM Breakfast, one of the hosts made a joke about the marriage breakup of Kim Dotcom and his wife. The comments were broadcast on MORE FM on 19 May 2014 at 7. 30am. [2] Colin Foster made a formal complaint to MediaWorks Radio Ltd (MediaWorks), arguing that the comments were inappropriate for a public media platform....

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made remarks about his dislike for campervans and the people who use them – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host's comments were personal opinion not points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the programme – campervan owners not a section of the community to which guideline 6g applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

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 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 concerning an interview on Breakfast. In a discussion concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s State of the Nation speech, the host stated to ACT Party Deputy Leader Brooke van Velden ‘You mentioned that, division was from the previous Government. I mean, come on, you look at the Treaty of Waitangi. You must be able to read the room in terms of how the nation is feeling towards that Bill by your party. ’ The complainant considered the host’s implication that this division was caused by ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that the question was comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards relating to an interview on Breakfast about Government plans to reverse a ban on live exports. The complainant argued live export footage used in the segment contributed to a lack of balance, was misleading and would lead viewers to believe it depicted New Zealand cattle in distress. The balance standard was not breached given the interview was signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, the audience could be expected to be aware of other viewpoints from other media, and the host had challenged the interviewee and referenced Government policy. The Authority found viewers were unlikely to assume the footage depicted New Zealand cattle and, in any event, if it had misled viewers on that point, it was not materially misleading because it would not significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme....