An episode of Re-Think featured a panel discussion about how to encourage people to care about, and take action on, climate change. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance because it did not present the view that climate change is natural and not caused by humans. The item was clearly framed from the outset as not delving into the controversial aspects of climate change or its causes, so viewers would not have expected a balanced debate about those issues. Rather, the programme brought the topic down to a community level and offered practical lifestyle tips.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
Sunday Morning contained two items on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa: Counterpoint contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel’s arms industry; and an interview with an anti-apartheid activist discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast breached the controversial issues standard, as no alternative perspective was presented either within the broadcast, in any proximate broadcast or in other media. The Authority declined to uphold the remainder of the complaints because: the statements complained of were either expressions of opinion or matters the Authority cannot determine and therefore were not subject to the accuracy standard; the statements did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the programme did not treat any individual or organisation unfairly.
Upheld: Controversial Issues
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness
No Order
Campbell Live covered a story about an eader (a pit for raw milk waste) in the town of Eltham in Taranaki that was allegedly making local residents ill. The South Taranaki District Council complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair. The Authority found that this was an important story which carried high public interest and that much of it was accurate and well-reported. Nevertheless, a number of statements conveying the gravity of the problem with the eader did not have a sufficient basis and were overblown, which was misleading and unfair. Accordingly the Authority upheld some aspects of the complaint.
Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
No Order
3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast contained inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced information and breached the privacy of Trunk Property’s director. The item was materially accurate, was not unfair to Trunk Property or its director and did not breach the director’s privacy. Trunk Property was given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the story and its response was fairly presented in the item.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
The 3 News political editor reported on proposed legislative changes to pay rises for Members of Parliament. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and inaccurate in that the editor ‘presented… opinion as fact’ and used ‘highly emotive language’. The report provided sufficient balance, and the statements complained of were clearly the editor’s opinion and analysis rather than statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applied.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy
A promo for the movie No Strings Attached screened during The X Factor NZ which was rated G. The Authority upheld the complaint that explicit sexual references contained in the promo went beyond the boundaries of the G classification and consequently the broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of younger viewers who were likely to be watching.
Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
No Order
Campbell Live marked the fourth anniversary of the first Canterbury earthquake with a live broadcast from a Christchurch school hall where an audience of local residents with unresolved insurance claims participated in the programme. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards because the programme did not include the insurance industry’s perspective and was misleading about the industry’s willingness to participate in the programme.
Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy
Order: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement
The hosts of the Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom show interviewed an eliminated contestant from The Bachelor about her experience on the show. At the end of the item, one of the hosts introduced the new ‘Bachelorette game show’ titled, ‘What’s your cucumber number?’ The premise was for contestants to put cucumbers into their mouths and bite down. Whichever contestant could bite down the farthest along the cucumber would be the winner. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was demeaning to women and unsuitable for children. The broadcast was not outside audience expectations of the station and breakfast radio shows generally, and the innuendo would have gone over the heads of most children.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
The E! channel featured an ‘Entertainment Special’ entitled The Real 50 Shades of Grey about couples who engage in BDSM (Bondage/ Discipline/ Dominance/ Submission/ Sadism/ Masochism). The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme encouraged sexual violence and normalised BDSM practice. The content was discussed only in fairly innocuous terms and no explicitly sexual or violent material was shown. However, the Authority upheld the complaint that the programme should have included warning labels for sexual and other potentially offensive content, as the subject matter had the potential to offend viewers.
Upheld: Content Classification, Warning and Filtering
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence
No Order
A promo for Jono and Ben showed a parody of the Biblical event the Last Supper, in which the ‘disciples’ complained that ‘Jesus’ brought bread to dinner when ‘Simon’ and ‘Paul’ were ‘gluten-free’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the promo was offensive to Christians. Light-hearted satire of religious figures is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression. This particular skit was not malicious and did not threaten norms of good taste and decency.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency