Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME Radio Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about the use of the phrase ‘you’d have to be on the spectrum’ on Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive programme. As part of a discussion about the ‘political week that was’, political reporter Barry Soper commented, ‘you would have to be on the spectrum to go out there and vote for them [Te Pāti Māori]’, which the complainant considered was discriminatory towards people with autism. The Authority found the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaint, apologise to the complainant, and counsel du Plessis-Allan and Soper on the importance of considering the potential offence and impact of comments on sections of the community, was sufficient in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration (Action Taken)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment during Days with Lorna Subrtizky on Coast FM discussing Sylvester Stallone’s recent divorce. As part of the segment, the host joked, ‘When he was interviewed about it, Sly Stallone had this to say…’ and played a clip of Stallone garbling unintelligibly, with only the word ‘Rocky’ able to be made out. The complainant considered this to be a cruel and insensitive joke which made fun of Stallone’s (and by implication, others’) disability affecting his speech, in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the joke was directed only at Stallone as an individual, and did not extend to a section of the community as required under the standard. In any event, the broadcast would not have reached the threshold required for finding a breach.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News concerning increased racism experienced by public figures in relation to co-governance issues breached the balance, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards. The complainant alleged the association of opponents of co-governance with racist abuse was an attempt to paint all opponents as racist and stop debate. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate and the expert featured could reasonably be relied upon, and the balance standard was not applicable. While the complainant was concerned the broadcasts denigrated opponents of co-governance, this group is not a recognised section of society for the purposes of the standard. Not upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, characters Lincoln and Jack took Nicole out for drinks to take her mind off her attacker. Lincoln, who was previously in a relationship with a man, was shown taking an illegal drug which he gave to Nicole. Later in the episode, Lincoln and Nicole were shown in bed together. In the episode broadcast the following evening, Jack asked Lincoln about being gay and sleeping with Nicole. Lincoln replied that he did not have to ‘put a label on it’, saying, ‘I’m just me’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme’s portrayal of Lincoln’s sexuality, by a straight actor, could have damaging effects on young viewers or those struggling with their sexuality....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Q+A with Jack Tame with recently-appointed Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, covering a wide range of topics. One complaint alleged Tame was rude and disrespectful in his interviewing style and showed ‘complete disregard for the position of the country's Prime Minister’. The other complaint alleged comments made by Tame about former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s strengths particularly in the foreign policy sphere (including that she appeared on the cover of Vogue and had ‘soft power’) amounted to ‘misogyny’ by suggesting this was due to her looks, and reflected ‘bigoted views towards women’. The Authority found Tame’s interview style and questioning did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny or challenge that could reasonably be expected in an interview with the Prime Minister on issues of high public importance....

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 a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Seven Sharp in which Hilary Barry made comments about the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and about ‘anti-vaxxers’, including suggesting those who do not want to be vaccinated could ‘jump on a ferry and go to the Auckland Islands for a few years, and then when we’ve got rid of COVID-19…come back’. The complaint alleged these comments breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards, by suggesting the safety of the vaccine was almost without question, and denigrating those with a different view. The Authority found Ms Barry’s comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. It found the broadcast did not address a controversial issue so the balance standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment on the Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley morning show breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, the hosts made several jokes and innuendos about the name of Irish airline Aer Lingus and one host, putting on an Irish accent, stated ‘on the menu today, we have potatoes’. The complainant considered the jokes to be offensive to Irish people and culture, and to amount to racism. The Authority acknowledged the jokes had the potential to offend, but did not uphold the complaint, finding the jokes did not meet the threshold for a breach under the discrimination and denigration standard as they were unlikely to encourage the different treatment of Irish people to their detriment, devalue the reputation of Irish people, or embed negative stereotypes. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints that a promo for the ASB Women’s Classic tennis competition was in breach of the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards of the Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The promo depicted a tennis player’s skirt flying up in a brief action shot of her hitting the ball. While acknowledging the potential effect of repeatedly viewing this clip, the Authority found that ultimately the clip was not likely to undermine current norms of good taste and decency and did not contain the high level of condemnation or malice necessary to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The broadcaster provided an explanation for the selection of the clip and the Authority was satisfied that the promo would not cause harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard in relation to a segment on Jack Tame on Saturday Morning. The complaint alleged several comments made by a guest on the programme were racist, including that numerous Chinese and Indian climbers attempted to summit Mt Everest for kudos, and that many Nepalese tour companies had to compete for the bottom of the tourism market, by providing cheap tours and cutting corners. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required for a breach of the standard.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Morning Report, which discussed efforts to increase diversity in local government bodies. The complainant considered the comment ‘pale, male and stale’ made during the broadcast was derogatory towards older white men, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the comments did not meet the high threshold required to breach the standard and justify restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the title of a segment ‘tradie versus lady’ on ZM’s Bree and Clint. While the Authority agreed with the complainant the title may be sexist and outdated, it did not encourage discrimination and denigration in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint a reference to ‘Māori currently waiting 12 months longer than others for surgery’ in the introduction of a 1 News item breached the accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards. The Authority accepted the reference was inaccurate, as it should have said ‘Māori were more likely than others to be waiting 12 months for surgery’ (not waiting 12 months longer). However, the Authority found the inaccuracy was not material, given the item’s focus on the pressures on the health system, potential negative outcomes of long waiting times, and the Planned Care Taskforce’s recommendations to reduce waiting times. In this context, the brief reference to Māori wait times in the introduction was unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. The discrimination and denigration and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item briefly described a ruling of the International Court of Justice in relation to Israel’s actions in Rafah, and an academic’s perspective on the potential reaction of the international community. The complainant argued other perspectives and information should have been included, the description of the ruling was inaccurate, and the various statements, omissions and inaccuracies contributed to breaches of multiple standards. The Authority found the brief item did not constitute a ‘discussion’, so the balance standard did not apply. With regard to accuracy, the Authority found the description of the ruling was reasonable and the broadcaster had exercised reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It also found the academic’s reference to ‘attacking’ by Israel constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and was materially accurate....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Gagaifo O Faiva that reported a Supreme Court of Samoa decision which convicted 11 men in relation to a 2023 kidnapping incident in Lefagaoali’i village, Samoa. The complaint alleged the broadcast discriminated against, denigrated, and was unfair to the 11 men sentenced. The Authority acknowledged the broadcast contributed to the distress felt by the complainant and the men’s families. However, having regard to factors including audience and cultural expectations of the presenter, the high public profile of the kidnapping, and public interest in the broadcast subject matter, the Authority found criticism of the 11 convicted was not unfair and any harm caused was not at a level to justify the Authority’s intervention. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply, since the relevant comments were aimed at individuals as opposed to a protected section of the community....

The Authority did not uphold two complaints that comments made by Mike Hosking during his Mike’s Minute segment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. Discussing two recent immigration policy decisions by the Government, Mr Hosking commented, ‘discrimination is no bad thing’ and, ‘Where do too many of the radicalised nutters come from? That particular part of the planet [Africa and the Middle East]. . . We don’t want to take the risk of a poor-ish person’s parent arriving – so why a jihadist? ’ The Authority acknowledged the complainants’ concerns that Mr Hosking’s choice of language was inflammatory. However, it found that in the context of the item, which carried public interest, the comments complained about were brief and moderated by the remainder of the item. Mr Hosking was expressing his genuinely held opinion on a legitimate issue, rather than being malicious or nasty....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about comments, made by contestants about a landscaper during an episode of The Block, was not upheld. During the episode, a new landscaper started work on the property of contestants, Chlo and Em. Em referred to the landscaper and said, ‘Who’s that new meat on The Block? Come over. ’ Chlo then said ‘Some fresh meat for Em’. The complainant submitted the references to the landscaper as ‘meat’ were sexist, unacceptable and amounted to sexual harassment. The Authority highlighted the importance of context when considering whether comments of a sexual nature have breached broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that, in some contexts, these comments could be considered to be inappropriate. In this case, however, the comments did not go beyond audience expectations of The Block....