Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld complaints that action taken by Radio New Zealand Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard about a statement in a news bulletin that a recent ruling by the International Court of Justice had found Israel ‘not guilty of genocide. ’ While the Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaints, it found RNZ had taken sufficient steps in response to the complaints, by broadcasting an on-air correction within a reasonable period after the bulletin at issue, as well as posting a correction to its website. Other standards alleged to have been breached by the broadcast were found either not to apply or not to have been breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp item which featured presenter Hilary Barry accompanying an entertainer and keen hunter on a seasonal duck shooting trip to mark the hunter’s appointment as the first patron of Fish & Game New Zealand. The complainant considered the item offensive in showing animal cruelty and disrespect for wildlife, inaccurate in stating ‘only introduced species’ are hunted in Aotearoa New Zealand (noting the patron shot a native paradise shelduck), and failed to reflect alternative perspectives on the cruelty and ecologically harmful effects of duck shooting. The Authority found the segment was a human-interest piece focused more on the patron than hunting and was consistent with the style and tone of Seven Sharp; viewers would not have been unduly surprised or disturbed by the content....

An item on Paddy Gower Has Issues investigated the predator control of feral cats, and discussed whether or not feral cats should be included in the Predator Free 2050 strategy. The broadcast included footage of feral cats being trapped and shot, and people carrying, and holding up the carcasses. The Authority did not uphold the complaint the broadcast breached multiple standards, finding relevant footage was clearly signposted by the host, who provided two warnings to viewers about the content. Viewers were therefore given a reasonable opportunity to make a different viewing choice for themselves or children in their care. The footage depicted no undue cruelty or suffering, and while some viewers may have found it unpleasant to watch, the broadcast of hunting and pest control footage is generally acceptable in New Zealand provided it does not depict undue cruelty....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a joke made on 7 Days breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The show featured a segment where comedians were asked to come up with scary kids’ shows, to which one of the responses was ‘High School Musical 4: The Active Shooter. ’ The complainant alleged this joke was offensive due to recent school shootings in the United States. The Authority found the joke was not outside of audience expectations for the programme, and the nature of the content was sufficiently signposted through audience advisories. In this context, the joke was not likely to widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

Warning: This decision discusses issues of sexual abuse of children and suicide. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that documentary 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth was inaccurate by not mentioning the denomination or titles of school chaplains involved in sexual abuse of students, or a complaint that the inclusion of re-enactments of memories of survivors re-traumatised victims of abuse, promoted sexual offending against children, breached privacy and was unfair to child actors involved. The Authority found that omission to mention the denomination or title of chaplains would not have materially altered the audience’s understanding of the documentary. The Authority also found that the inclusion of re-enactments did not breach the standards nominated, noting in particular that audience members (including survivors of abuse) were given appropriate information to make informed viewing decisions, no re-enactment depicted sexual violence and the offending of paedophiles was condemned throughout....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the fairness standard during an episode of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive was insufficient. The complaint related to an interview with a 16-year-old climate activist about the Schools Strike for Climate movement, and the group’s key demands. During the interview, the interviewee admitted she had recently travelled to Fiji, despite one of the group’s demands being a ban on ‘unnecessary air travel’. This resulted in the host hysterically laughing at, and teasing the interviewee for over a minute. The broadcaster conceded in light of the interviewee’s age and potential vulnerability, the segment breached the fairness standard. The Authority determined it too would have found a breach of the fairness standard, but in the circumstances considered the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to address the breach....

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 offensive language and sexual themes in an episode of New Zealand Today, a satirical ‘journalism’ programme by comedian Guy Williams. The programme was broadcast at 8. 35pm, classified 16-LSC (advisory for language, sexual content, and content that may offend), and preceded by a full-screen warning, with the classification and advisory labels repeated after each advertisement break. Given audience expectations of Williams and the programme, the classification, the warning and the scheduling, the Authority found the broadcast would not cause widespread undue offence in the context, and audiences were able to make their own informed viewing choices. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard, regarding a 1News football match preview which included a montage of crowd shots. The complaint was about a crowd shot where a Palestinian flag was visible. The Authority has declined to determine the complaint on the grounds it concerned matters of personal preference and did not raise issues of potential harm which required the Authority’s intervention. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined) Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a reporter’s comment during a segment on 1 News concerning the death of a child from a throat infection breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The Authority acknowledged the relevant phrase represented a poor choice of words. However, in the context, the Authority accepted that it was inadvertent and did not merit regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard regarding a match of Super Smash Cricket which featured the te reo Māori phrase ‘kore puta’ (following the English phrase ‘not out’) onscreen when a review was called for whether the player batting was out or not out. The complainant considered the word ‘puta’ was highly offensive due to its different meaning in other languages such as Spanish and Portuguese. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding that in the context of a broadcast of a New Zealand domestic cricket match, and the previous phrase onscreen ‘decision pending’ also translated in te reo, it was clear the word ‘puta’ was being used as a te reo translation for the word ‘out’. In this context, the Authority did not need to consider what the word may mean in other languages....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint which allegedly featured ‘gendered and vulgar’ language on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The presenter suggested the Prime Minister needed to grow ‘a bigger set of balls’ in response to his handling of the resignation of cabinet minister Andrew Bayly. The Authority concluded the presenter’s language, while provocative, was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress among the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content ...

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on Seven Sharp breached the offensive and disturbing content standard by describing a driver who uses mobility car parks illegally as an “arsehole”. The Authority acknowledged some viewers may find it offensive but, in the context, found it unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or seriously violate widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

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....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made during Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB regarding the New Zealand Police’s decision to continue with charges against Ms Z, the woman involved in the Jevon McSkimming case. The complaint was that the comments – including labelling their relationship an ‘affair’, saying Ms Z was ‘not innocent’, and referencing ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’ – demonstrated classic ‘victim blaming’, minimised and misrepresented Ms Z’s experience, and were unbalanced and unfair. The Authority considered the segment overall was consistent with well-established audience expectations, and any potential offensiveness or unfairness arising from some of the comments did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression or the public interest. The Authority also found the comments were either clearly opinion or not materially inaccurate and not required to be balanced in the context....