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
The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast discussing racial tensions arising from coalition government policies. The item mentioned a 1News Verian poll on whether the coalition government’s policies were increasing, decreasing, or making no real difference to racial tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complainant alleged the broadcast, and the poll were ‘incredibly biased’ and that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it raised issues under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards that could all be dismissed on grounds previously explained to the complainant; the broadcast could not be considered to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the complaint concerned issues of personal preference and had been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision.
Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness.
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief Nine to Noon segment discussing the latest developments in a site investigation at the former Ivon Watkins-Dow (Dow) chemical plant in Paritūtū, New Plymouth lacked balance and accuracy. Noting the nature of the programme, the perspectives included in it and other media, and that the period of current interest for issues at Paritūtū was ongoing, the Authority found reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints. The Authority also found none of the matters alleged to be inaccurate or misleading were materially inaccurate or misleading in the context.
Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Breakfast segment breached the accuracy standard through its reporting on a study by RMIT and Monash Universities. The study found low carbohydrate diets may increase a person’s risk of developing type two diabetes by 20% because people often replace the carbohydrates with unhealthy fats. The complainant considered statements in the broadcast that low carbohydrate diets can increase the risk of developing type two diabetes were wrong and misleading; that the programme inappropriately pushed whole grains and fruit as a better choice compared to healthy fats, red meat, and dairy; and the researcher’s comments regarding the Atkins diet and the results of the study were unreliable. The Authority found the relevant statements would not have misled viewers in the context and it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on the accuracy of the study and the researcher’s comments.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an RNZ National news bulletin addressing airstrikes in Lebanon breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards, including by failing to provide context for the airstrikes. The Authority found the broadcast was a simple report on events rather than a ‘discussion’ of issues to which the balance standard might apply. It found listeners were unlikely to get a misleading impression of events from the report and the fairness standard did not apply.
Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness
The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a 1News segment on the dangers of crossing sand bars. In the segment, a Coastguard representative said, ‘We recommend crossing the bar at high or low tide, so we can try and take the current out of the equation’. The complaint alleged the recommendation to cross at low tide was ‘wrong’ and ‘dangerous’ and Coastguard were not an authoritative source regarding maritime matters. The Authority considered there were reasonable arguments for a finding the statement was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The segment’s overall emphasis was on the dangers and complexity in crossing sand bars, and the statement addressed just one of several risk factors mentioned. In any event, the Authority found it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on information provided by the Coastguard representative on this topic.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by Television New Zealand Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a statement in a 1News bulletin that ‘Israel would withdraw from Gaza’ as part of a peace proposal (when the proposal only contemplated withdrawal from densely populated areas). The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision that the statement was materially inaccurate. However, it found TVNZ had complied with the accuracy standard requirement to correct material errors within a reasonable period by posting correct information on its website, and any potential harm caused by the broadcast was not of a level requiring any further action. 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), Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness
The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a Newstalk ZB news item reporting Israel’s bombing of a Gaza City school and included an academic’s perspective on the incident. The complainant argued the broadcast was misleading by not mentioning that the school was (according to Israel) a Hamas command post and therefore a ‘legitimate target’, and by including the academic’s comments. The Authority found the academic’s comments were analysis, comment, or opinion to which the standard does not apply. It also found that choosing to not include Israel’s rationale for the bombing was a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion. The broadcast was not materially inaccurate, and did not give a wrong idea or impression of the facts.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 7 Days was unfair to a singer who performed the New Zealand national anthem ahead of an All Blacks game in San Diego. The complainants said the broadcast was unfair to the performer and unbalanced, noting she was accused of ‘butchering’ the anthem and called ‘Dunedin’s most well-known murderer’. The Authority found the programme was not unfair, noting: viewers were unlikely to interpret the programme as suggesting the performer was an actual murderer or criminal; having chosen to perform at such an event, she could reasonably expect comment on her performance; viewers would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of the performer; comments were directed at the performance rather than the performer personally; and that comedy and satire are valuable forms of expression. The balance standard did not apply.
Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard. Destiny Church and Family First were also treated fairly: the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for public figures, and both organisations were invited to respond - which Family First did, and their comments were read out on-air.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness.