Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes – apology from Mr Holmes for comments he made about UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Newstalk ZB – apology said to be unbalanced, inaccurate and breached requirements for law and order Findings Standard 2 – not applicable – decline to determine Standard 4 – personal statement – balance not an issue – decline to determine Standard 5 – no inaccuracy – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Paul Holmes, the host of Holmes broadcast on TV One on weekdays at 7. 00pm, made a personal statement on Holmes on 29 September 2003 about some comments he had made on Newstalk ZB. Among some other comments made on Newstalk ZB, he had described the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a “cheeky darkie”. His comments had received extensive media coverage....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Five on Fox News featured a panel discussion about the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. One of the panellists twice commented that a solution for the remaining Guantánamo Bay inmates would be to ‘kill them all’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the comment incited mass murder. The comment did not amount to promotion of serious illegal activity to a New Zealand audience, and in the context of the discussion and the nature of the programme and channel it was unlikely to be taken literally by reasonable viewers. Not Upheld: Law and OrderIntroduction[1] The Five on Fox News featured a panel discussion about the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. One of the panellists twice commented that a solution for the remaining Guantánamo Bay inmates would be to ‘kill them all’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the movie Fifty Shades Darker was in breach of standards because it glorified a manipulative and abusive relationship. The Authority found viewers were sufficiently informed about the nature of the content to enable them to manage their own viewing. The movie did not contain any content that would go beyond audience expectations for the classification and timeband, especially given the well-publicised nature of the movie. The movie did not encourage violent or law-breaking activity. Finally, the Authority also found that people who engage in BDSM (a sexual practice that involves the use of physical control, psychological power, or pain) are not a recognised group for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on Paris Hilton going to jail – presenter made comments about Ms Hilton and threw a box of tissues over her shoulder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, fairness, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter acted in a light-heated and off-the-cuff manner – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter expressed her own opinion in a light-hearted way – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item would not have disturbed child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments made by Paul Henry during Rebuilding Paradise with Paul Henry undermined the Director-General of Health’s directions regarding compliance with COVID-19 Alert-Level conditions. Mr Henry noted there were no new cases of COVID-19 on the day of broadcast and commented, ‘I don’t want Dr Ashley Bloomfield to threaten me and you with the “if New Zealanders aren’t good at Level 3, they won’t get to Level 2” warning. I realise people think he walks on water, but I don’t. …Obedience in the population is the job of the police and, god help us, the reluctant [Police] Commissioner’. Noting the importance of the right to freedom of expression and that Mr Henry was clearly giving his views on a topic of high public interest, the Authority found no actual or potential harm that justified regulatory intervention....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – broadcasts unsuitable for children Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) 22 November broadcast – 6. 31am – Principle 1 – uphold (3) 22 November broadcast – 6. 39am – no uphold (4) 23 November broadcast – 6. 39am – Principle 1 – uphold (5) 26 November broadcast – 7. 40am – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 and Guideline 7b – uphold (6) 27 November broadcast – 6. 35am – action taken insufficient – uphold (7) 30 November broadcast – 6. 36am – action taken insufficient – uphold (8) 6 December broadcast – 6. 19am – no uphold OrderTotal costs to the Crown in the sum of $3,000Cross-references: 2001-071–084; 2001-138–204 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed industrial dispute at Ports of Auckland – host Willie Jackson made controversial comments in support of striking workers, for example, “I hope they get aggressive down there at the wharf”, “Go and bust your pickets over some of these scabs”, and, “I am into militant action” – comments allegedly in breach of law and order and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – taken in context, the comments amounted to the host’s vehemently expressed opinion – listeners would not have taken the comments seriously – broadcast did not encourage listeners to engage in unlawful activity, taking into account clarifications and retractions – high value protest speech was engaged so upholding the complaint would unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 This headnote does not…...

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. . ....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints about episodes of Shortland Street, which followed the ongoing storyline of a threesome between a married couple and their nanny. The Authority acknowledged that some viewers might find this storyline distasteful and that some scenes and references might have raised questions for children. However, the Authority found that various contextual factors, including audience expectations of the long-running television drama and a warning for sexual material, prepared audiences for the likely content and minimised the potential for undue harm. The sexual material and references contained in these episodes were relatively inexplicit, with no nudity or sexual activity beyond kissing shown. Finally, the fictional sexual activity took place between consenting adults and no illegal or seriously antisocial activity was portrayed during the programme....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp on Valentine’s Day reported on a woman who had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item glamorised theft and was unfair to the man. It was clear from the item that the woman had given the man ample opportunity to retrieve the sunglasses, and he was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgramingIntroduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp, broadcast on 14 February 2014, included an ‘anti-Valentine’s Day’ story where a woman had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’....

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – report on the sale of horse meat for human consumption that had been processed as pet food – included undercover investigation – reporter shown speaking with the owner of pet food factory allegedly supplying horse meat – reporter told to leave the property but continued to ask questions – allegedly in breach of law and order Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – reporter acted in a professional and appropriate manner – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about ongoing Family Court proceedings concerning custody of a child – father interviewed anonymously and gave details of evidence and proceedings – brief visuals of baby – mother believed that as baby was identifiable, she was also identifiable – personal details broadcast about her – some allegedly inaccurate – child shown without mother’s permission – alleged breach of privacy of mother and baby – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – referral outside statutory time limit – s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989X105FM – hosts were talking to a man as he attempted to enter the grounds of Premier House where a barbeque for Prince William was about to take place – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At around 7pm on X105FM on 18 January 2010, one of the station’s employees, Warwick Slow, gained entry to Premier House by jumping over the fence, ahead of a barbecue for Prince William....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]How to Make Money Selling Drugs, a documentary film about the United States’ drug industry, featured a mock ‘how to’ guide for being a successful drug dealer. The documentary then examined and critiqued the United States’ ‘War on Drugs’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the documentary provided ‘information and tips to. . . potential drug dealers’ and encouraged crime. How to Make Money Selling Drugs was a satirical documentary which used broadcasting devices to gain viewers’ attention and highlight a significant problem in our society. While the documentary may have initially appeared to present positive aspects of drug dealing, it went on to explore the negative consequences, such as incarceration and death. The documentary did not condone drug dealing, and offered alternative solutions to combatting drug use in society....

During a segment of The AM Show, which discussed how different sections of the community had united in the wake of the Christchurch mosque attacks, host Duncan Garner said he’d like ‘the gangs’ to nominate a person to ‘look after’ the alleged attacker. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Garner’s comment breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found, upon consideration of contextual factors, including the glib nature of the comment, that while it was discordant with the tone of the broadcast and may have caused offence to some, it did not go beyond audience expectations of Mr Garner or The AM Show. The Authority concluded that any restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unreasonable.   Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order...