BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

A Nine to Noon programme included a segment featuring UK correspondent Dame Ann Leslie. In response to the host’s question ‘What is on your mind this week?’, Dame Leslie commented on the British Labour Party, its leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Black Lives Matter UK organisation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Dame Leslie’s comments constituted an attack on Mr Corbyn, denigrated the BLM UK activists, and were inaccurate and unbalanced. Mr Corbyn and BLM UK were not treated unfairly, as both could reasonably expect to be subject to robust media scrutiny as a consequence of their public profile. While the item was a current affairs piece to which the balance standard applied, the issues were approached from Dame Leslie’s perspective and listeners would not have expected alternative views to be given. The statements complained about were clearly Dame Leslie’s opinion, and so were not subject to the requirements of the accuracy standard. The statements about the BLM UK activists did not reach the high level necessary to constitute discrimination or denigration.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Accuracy and Discrimination and Denigration

An item on Sunday Morning with Wallace Chapman, titled ‘Abortion and Civil Liberties – the Thames Stand-Off’, discussed ‘pro-life’ protestors, Voice for Life, and their longstanding protests outside Thames Hospital. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter was biased and that his treatment of the ‘pro-life’ representative was negative, unfair and unbalanced in comparison to his treatment of the ‘pro-choice’ representative. The Authority found that Mr Chapman’s treatment of the interviewees did not result in an unbalanced broadcast, as both perspectives on the debate were adequately put forward during the programme. While Mr Chapman’s questioning of the ‘pro-life’ representative was robust, his criticisms related to the Voice for Life group as a whole, and he did not attack the interviewee personally or come across as abusive towards her, such that she was treated unfairly. The allegedly inaccurate statement made by Mr Chapman represented his interpretation of the issues discussed, and as such could be distinguished as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than a point of fact subject to the accuracy standard.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness, Accuracy 

Promos for 60 Minutes, The Brokenwood Mysteries, Poldark and 11.22.63 were broadcast on Prime, during an unclassified All Blacks rugby match against Ireland. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that it was inappropriate to broadcast promos for PGR and AO programmes during G-rated host programmes. The Authority noted that the All Blacks match was unclassified, meaning any promos needed to be classified either G or PGR to comply with broadcasting standards. While the promos featured or alluded to adult themes, the depiction of those themes was consistent with the G classification. The promos were unlikely to disturb or offend viewers, including any child viewers who were watching the rugby.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

Promos for South Park, Tosh.O and Bombshell: The Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior screened during the wildlife programme Africa’s Fishing Leopards, which was classified G. The promos contained potentially offensive language, which was censored, and verbal references to an ‘act of terror’ and ‘murder’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that it was inappropriate to broadcast promos for AO-classified programmes during G-programmes, as they contained adult themes. The Authority noted that it is acceptable to screen promos for AO programmes during G programmes, provided that the promo complies with the classification of the host programme. It found that in this case, the use of censored coarse language did not breach standards, but noted that in order to maintain a G classification, broadcasters must take care to adequately edit any AO or PGR content. The promos did not contain any other material which was adult in nature or would have adversely affected child viewers. The balance standard does not apply to the promotion of fictional or comedy programmes (only news, current affairs and factual programmes).

Not Upheld: Children’s Interests, Balance

An episode of the documentary series, The Hard Stuff with Nigel Latta, titled ‘Selling Ourselves Short’, focused on the topic of New Zealand’s economy, comparing our standard of living today with the 1960s-70s. The episode examined some of New Zealand’s traditional and upcoming export industries, such as dairy farming, forestry, pharmaceuticals, technology and fashion, and featured interviews with farmers, business owners, economists and academics. At the beginning of the episode, Mr Latta stated, ‘We’re rated as one of the best places in the world to do business and we’re not corrupt.’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Latta’s statement was inaccurate and that the episode was unbalanced because it did not address New Zealand’s ‘extensive corruption’ as a reason for our underperforming economy. Mr Latta’s statement was not a material point of fact in the context of the episode as a whole and his brief mention of corruption did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance that triggered the requirements of the balance standard.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness  

During the Leighton Smith Show, presenter Leighton Smith, in relation to a headline regarding Pope Francis’ warning to then President-elect Donald Trump, ‘do not back away from UN climate pact’, said, ‘I don’t want to offend, certainly not insult, any Catholics listening, but how did you end up with this tosser?’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment was derogatory, crude and demeaning. Mr Smith was entitled to express his opinion on the Pope’s stance on climate change and while his comment was considered offensive by the complainant, in the context of a talkback radio show, the Authority did not consider it undermined current norms of good taste and decency. The comment did not breach the other broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, as it reflected Mr Smith’s opinion, did not discriminate or denigrate against a section of the community, and as a public figure speaking publicly on a controversial issue, Pope Francis could have expected commentary and criticism and was therefore not treated unfairly by Mr Smith.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness    

A ONE News item reported on a protest organised by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which carried a petition in the name of a deceased child, demanding changes to the rules around plea bargaining. The reporter stated, ‘the protestors chose disgraced ex-MP David Garrett to deliver that message to MPs… Garrett resigned from Parliament six years ago for stealing the identity of a dead infant…’ The Authority did not uphold Mr Garrett’s complaint that this statement was misleading, as it implied the incident being referred to occurred six years ago, as well as being unbalanced and unfair to him. The Authority found the comment was not misleading, but emphasised that Mr Garrett’s resignation occurred six years ago, which was correct. The Authority acknowledged that individuals ought to be entitled to move on with their lives without past indiscretions remaining the subject of media attention, but found that the reference to Mr Garrett’s history was an inevitable consequence of his decision to participate in a material way in this particular public protest. As Mr Garrett’s involvement in the protest was not the focus of the item, his view or other balancing material was not required.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Balance

An episode of the documentary series, The Hard Stuff with Nigel Latta, titled ‘The New New Zealand’, focused on the topic of immigration. The episode looked at common perceptions of immigration in New Zealand and featured interviews with the Chief Executive of Immigration New Zealand, an immigration consultant, two academic consultants and the Chief Economist at Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL), as well as a number of immigrants to New Zealand from China, India and the UK. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that alternative points of view were omitted from the item. This episode of The Hard Stuff carried high public interest and had high value in terms of the exercise of freedom of expression. It was sufficient, in the context of a series presented as being from a particular host’s perspective, for the episode to raise and acknowledge alternative viewpoints, without providing extensive details of those views. The Authority found that the programme was sufficiently balanced for viewers to make up their own minds about the validity of the arguments offered in favour of, and against, immigration.

Not Upheld: Balance

An item on Sunday Morning featured an interview with journalist Paula Penfold about the recently published book, Don’t Dream It’s Over: Reimagining Journalism in Aotearoa New Zealand. During the interview, Ms Penfold discussed the Stuff Circuit team’s investigation into the death of a teenage girl with Down Syndrome at the Gloriavale Christian community. Ms Penfold referred to the complainant’s documentary, Gloriavale: A Woman’s Place, saying, ‘And I know a little bit about how that works with Hopeful Christian, the leader at Gloriavale. You know, he will insist on editorial control’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Ms Penfold’s statements were inaccurate. Ms Penfold’s statement represented her own analysis, comment or opinion, based on her experiences at Gloriavale, and so was not subject to the accuracy standard. While Ms Penfold spoke authoritatively, in the context of her full statement, and the item as a whole, the Authority did not consider that listeners would have interpreted her comments as fact.

Not Upheld: Accuracy 

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. In this context How to Make Money Selling Drugs could not be interpreted as seriously encouraging or instructing viewers to engage in drug dealing, and did not undermine law and order.

Not Upheld: Law and Order