An episode of Futurama, an animated cartoon series, contained sexual references and innuendo. The episode which was classified G (General) screened on FOUR at 6.30pm. The Authority considered that the sexual content was not suitable for unsupervised child viewers and that the episode was incorrectly classified G when it should have been classified PGR. The broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests when incorrectly classifying the episode and screening it in G time
Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
No Order
An episode of Renters showed the inspection of a rental property in circumstances where the tenant was not home. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast breached the tenant’s privacy. By the time of this repeat broadcast in June 2013, the tenant had not lived at the property for some years, so she was not identifiable from the broadcast. Nevertheless the Authority expressed concern about the production company’s ‘usual practice’ of only notifying and obtaining consent from the landlord, and not the tenant.
Not Upheld: Privacy
An item on One News reported on court proceedings involving the complainant, a professional harness racing trainer and driver. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that two statements in the item were inaccurate and unfair, because they allegedly portrayed her as a ‘drugs cheat’ and were misleading. Taking into account all of the charges and the nature of the offending, the statements would not have misled viewers and did not cause any unwarranted harm to the complainant’s reputation.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
A discussion on Nine to Noon of New Zealand's 'three strikes' legislation, the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, was allegedly unbalanced because it involved only participants who opposed the legislation. In addition, the presenter and participants made statements that were alleged to be inaccurate, misleading, unfair and irresponsible. The broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold the other aspects of the complaint. The Authority considered that the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance and while the presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints. The Authority also found that two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment.
Upheld: Balance, Accuracy
Not Upheld: Fairness, Responsible Programming
No Order
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the ‘three strikes’ legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaint
Findings
Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheld
Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld
No Order
This headnote does not form part of the decision.
During a segment called ‘The Huddle’ on the Larry Williams Drive Show, involving a discussion about the candidates for the Labour Party leadership, one of the panellists commented that a candidate ‘enjoys being stabbed from behind’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and ‘disgusting’ because it allegedly referred to a gay candidate and amounted to ‘double entendre’. The comment was quick and open to more than one interpretation, and even if double entendre of a sexual nature was intended, this was well within the panellist’s right to free speech, and was permissible in the context of a discussion about a legitimate issue, aimed at an adult target audience.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
An item on Fair Go reported on a couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic, and included claims which he was disputing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair. Though it created a negative impression of the complainant, he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item. The claims were presented as the couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not as points of fact, so viewers would have understood that the claims were one side of the story only and were disputed by the complainant.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration
An item on 3rd Degree reported on a Korean man X who was ousted from his local church community for his participation in a ‘mockumentary’ about North Korea. The programme included an interview with the editor of a local Korean newspaper (one of the complainants), and attempted to interview a priest from X’s church. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the story was unfair to the interviewees and breached the newspaper editor’s privacy. The programme made genuine attempts to obtain comment from the interviewees, and they were treated fairly. The newspaper editor agreed to an interview so the broadcast did not disclose any private facts about him. The story did not discuss a controversial issue which required the presentation of alternative views; it focused on one man’s personal experiences.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Controversial Issues, Fairness
During two items on One News the presenters used the term "anti-gay" to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage. The complainant argued that the term was misleading and offensive and denigrated people who opposed same-sex marriage. The Authority considered the use of the term "anti-gay" was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, but it was corrected by the context of the items, which were obviously discussing gay marriage. The term did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage, and viewers would not have been deceived by the use of the term.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
Close Up reported on comments made by the Principal of Pompallier Catholic College in a school newsletter, objecting to gay marriage. The item claimed that the Principal suspended a teacher, who was interviewed by Close Up, and that students who opposed the comments were "threatened". A news ticker on Breakfast the following morning echoed the claims. The school argued the programmes were misleading and unfair, because the teacher was suspended for reasons other than his objection to the Principal's views, and no students were threatened. The Authority found that Close Up did not fairly present the reasons for the suspension, which created an unfairly negative impression of the Principal and the College, who were not given a fair chance to comment. It said the item should have couched the "threats" as allegations or the students' views, rather than unequivocal statements of fact. The Breakfast ticker was not material in the context of the programme.
Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
No Order