BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

A host on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated was required to argue that free-range eggs were ‘penis’ (stupid or absurd). The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were disgusting and unsuitable for broadcast in the middle of the day. While parts of the broadcast were crude, the content did not go beyond audience expectations of Radio Hauraki or this programme. Most regular listeners would have taken the comments as humorous and light-hearted, and would not have been unduly offended.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

Morning Report looked at the Taranaki Regional Council’s ‘landfarming’ policy and contained an interview with a Council representative. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast was misleading, unfair and unbalanced. The report was an accurate and fair reflection of what the representative told the reporter in the interview, and it is legitimate and important in our free and democratic society to challenge and criticise public bodies on matters of strong public interest.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Controversial Issues

Campbell Live interviewed the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, an American group advocating for the legalisation of cannabis throughout the United States, about why some states had voted to legalise cannabis, what he saw as the benefits of this and how this might be relevant to the New Zealand context where synthetic cannabis had recently been outlawed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced. The item was clearly focused on one overseas perspective, which might inform the New Zealand debate going forward, but it did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required the presentation of alternative viewpoints.

Not Upheld: Controversial Issues

A Campbell Live item reported on a convicted fraudster, X, and contained interviews with her ‘victims’, including a disabled man who had advanced money to X on the basis her daughter would become his wife. A photo was shown of his supposed wife-to-be (the complainant). The Authority did not uphold her complaint that showing her photograph breached her privacy. While it was unfortunate, very few people would have identified the complainant, there was no suggestion she was involved in the scam, and viewers were more likely to think the photo was not legitimate, so the disclosure was not highly offensive.

Not Upheld: Privacy 

The host of The Paul Henry Show and a TV3 reporter briefly discussed the future of Auckland’s Wynyard Quarter tram service, in a new segment titled ‘Council Watch’, and summarised the cost of the project to rate-payers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the segment was one-sided and misled viewers about the reason the trams were not currently operating. It is legitimate and important for the expenditure of public money to be scrutinized and subject to robust criticism, and the focus of the item was the cost of the project; other reasons why the tram service was not running were peripheral to that focus, so viewers would not have been misled by omitting reference to those reasons.

Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming

An election advertisement for the National Party referred to ‘Labour, The Greens and Dotcom’ wanting to spend ‘more than 30 billion dollars’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to ‘Dotcom’ was misleading because there was no ‘Dotcom Party’, and that the figure of 30 billion dollars was inaccurate. The advertisement did not explicitly refer to any ‘Dotcom Party’, Kim Dotcom has been a prominent figure in the election, and most listeners would have understood it to be a reference to the Internet Party, and that political party advertising is broadcast in the context of a robust political arena in the lead-up to a general election. The reference to other parties’ policy costs was analysis and interpretation by the National Party, and acceptable in this context.

Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration), Denigration, Misleading Programmes

During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry read out a fan’s letter about her ‘lactating boobies’ and made sexually suggestive remarks about her. Later, he used the word ‘fucked’, and during a live cross a woman burst in front of the camera and said, ‘West side, fuck her in the pussy’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments were unsuitable for broadcast. Taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the broadcaster’s limited control over live content, the material did not reach the high threshold necessary to breach standards of good taste and decency.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming 

Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order

An item on 3^rd Degree reported on the ‘turf war’ between two business owners in New Zealand’s adult entertainment industry. The item included footage of the complainant working in a strip club, serving drinks and talking to customers. The Authority upheld her complaint that this breached her privacy, as she had not consented to appearing in the programme.

Upheld: Privacy

Order: Section 13(1)(d) $1,500 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy

Seven Sharp reported on the Russian government banning adoptions of its orphans by New Zealand couples, because of New Zealand’s marriage equality legislation. The reporter referred to Vladimir Putin as ‘homophobic’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate and misleading. The comment was clearly analysis and commentary by the reporter, rather than a material point of fact, so it was not subject to standards of accuracy.

Not Upheld: Accuracy