Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary An item on Breakfast broadcast on TV One at about 7. 40 am on 9 July 1998 reviewed the contents of leading women’s magazines published during that week. A studio guest referred to Paula Yates, who was featured in a magazine, and commented that Yates was known largely "for shagging the famous". Mr Yoxall complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the remark was vulgar, and an unacceptable breach of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that the context of the remark was that the live studio broadcast was as tabloid as the magazines it reviewed. The comment was the guest’s genuinely-held opinion, and reflected a widely-held view of Yates. It was delivered in a light-hearted, laconic manner and, although unfortunate in view of Yates’ apparent attempted suicide, did not breach the standard, TVNZ wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made statements regarding the death of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Dixon’s family did not take part in the item and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 8. 42am on Thursday 5 February 2009, the programme’s presenters reported that convicted murderer Antonie Dixon had died in jail. The following exchange took place between the presenters: Host 1: Now in news just to hand, we can confirm that Antonie Dixon is the prisoner who has died at Paremoremo Prison....

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...

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 declined to determine a complaint under the balance standard regarding an episode of Breakfast that referred to New Zealand as Aotearoa. The complainant considered the name Aotearoa should not be used to replace the country’s official name. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could properly be determined by its complaints process. Declined to Determine: Balance (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances)...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – segments concerning police shooting of innocent bystander – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – views of the police were put forward by interviewees and viewer feedback – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 6. 50am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Monday 26 January 2009, one of the hosts interviewed the New Zealand Police Association President, Greg O’Connor, following a fatal shooting by the Armed Offenders Squad of an innocent man the previous Friday. The host asked Mr O’Connor whether it was reasonable at this time to question the actions of the police officers involved. Mr O’Connor responded: . . . it’s an absolute tragedy and we have got nothing but sympathy for that family. . . ....

SummaryThe word "Poms" was used on Breakfast broadcast on TV One on 23 December 1998 at 7. 00am in reference to the English cricket team which was touring Australia. Mr and Mrs Whitmore complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "pom" was without doubt racial discrimination. They asserted that no other race was belittled in the same way, and noted that the remark was often used in association with a report of a losing sporting performance. TVNZ responded that in its view the word did not carry the offensive connotations which the complainants attached to it. It was, TVNZ argued, a term used affectionately by residents of New Zealand and Australia. It noted that the issue had already been before the Authority which had concluded that the term did not breach broadcasting standards. It declined to uphold the complaint....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – discussion about proposed changes to adoption laws to allow homosexual couples to adopt – host said he was “iffy” about the changes and that homosexuality was “unnatural” – co-host and some viewers disagreed with his views – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comments were provocative but encouraged debate – host’s views were countered by co-host and viewer feedback – tone was not sufficiently malicious to encourage discrimination or denigration – 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 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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented on prisoners being handed over to Afghan security forces – "does anyone care if we put drills through the heads of these people" and "we need to get out the Stanley knives" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were provocative and hyperbolic but intended to stimulate discussion – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – standard not applicable – 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 Tuesday 17 August 2010, presenter Paul Henry interviewed TVNZ's political editor on recent events in Afghanistan....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Breakfast stating ‘20 million tonnes of plastic waste’ was being exported each year breached the accuracy standard. The figure was accepted as inaccurate (with an estimate of 35,000 tonnes more likely). However, in the context of an item focussed on a petition to address the harm caused to other countries as a result of New Zealand’s large-scale plastic waste exports, the Authority found it was unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter was discussing American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship. At the end of the segment the presenter remarked, ‘Yeah, they don’t have very good humour the British, do they? They probably didn’t get [Mr Spieth’s] speech. ’ A complaint was made that this comment was ‘racist and untrue’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comment was not malicious and was unlikely to cause widespread offence, therefore any potential harm caused by the broadcast did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy  Introduction[1] During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter discussed American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship....

In a segment on Breakfast, the hosts tried out a ‘Bug-A-Salt’; a device in the shape of a firearm which shoots granules of salt to kill flies and other bugs. As part of the segment, the hosts did some ‘target practice’ on a Donald Trump ‘troll doll,’ shooting it down twice. The Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour broadcasting standards. While the Authority found the segment pushed the boundaries of acceptable humour, in the context of the broadcast, including the comedic and light-hearted tone, the focus on the effectiveness of the Bug-A-Salt rather than Trump, and the lack of malicious intent, it found it was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Hauraki Breakfast, hosts Jeremy Wells and Matt Heath discussed smoking marijuana, in relation to several National Party MPs who had recently publicly stated they had never tried it. The hosts took calls from listeners who had also never tried marijuana and asked them why they had never tried it. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast promoted and encouraged the use of marijuana. The Authority found the broadcast amounted to a comedic discussion of smoking marijuana that did not go beyond established audience expectations of Radio Hauraki, Hauraki Breakfast or the hosts. The Authority noted that humour and satire are important aspects of free speech, and found that on this occasion, there was insufficient risk of harm to justify limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Breakfast – presenter drank a yard glass on his 21st birthday – broadcast allegedly advocated excessive alcohol consumption and broadcaster not mindful of children Findings Principle 8 (liquor) – tone of item accepted practice as normal – socially irresponsible promotion of liquor – upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7b (children) – socially irresponsible to broadcast drinking of yard glass during children’s normally accepted listening times – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Presenter Cam’s 21st birthday was celebrated on the ZM breakfast show at about 8. 20am on 13 February 2007. While in the carpark with another presenter, Cam attempted to drink a yard glass. A yard glass is a drinking vessel – traditionally one yard long – containing about two litres of beer....

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....