During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product. What Now did not undermine the seriousness of the issue, but raised awareness of allergies in a way that would appeal to children, that was simplistic, humorous and entertaining.
Not Upheld: Responsible Programming
A One News item reported an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle. On the basis it was frivolous and trivial, the Authority declined to determine the complaint that the item’s use of the word ‘biker’ gave the impression the motorcyclist was a ‘reckless’ gang member and had caused the accident. ‘Biker’ was a colloquial term referring to the driver of a motorbike, and in any case the words ‘biker’ and ‘motorcylist’ were used interchangeably.
Declined to Determine: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
In two items broadcast a week apart on Seven Sharp, the presenters made comments about the leader of the Conservative Party, Colin Craig, relating to his opposition to the Marriage (Definition) Amendment Bill. The Authority did not uphold the complaints relating to the first broadcast, as it was balanced and was not unfair to Colin Craig. However, the second broadcast, which was a satirical piece, went too far and amounted to a personal attack on Colin Craig which was unfair. The Authority ordered the broadcast of a statement including an apology to Colin Craig, and $1,500 costs to the Crown.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Violence
Orders: Broadcast statement, $1,500 costs to Crown
An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact. A majority of the Authority was satisfied that the item did not breach the balance standard, finding that the nature of the programme and the topic meant that viewers would have interpreted the predictions with some scepticism and would be aware of different positions in the debate about climate change. The minority felt, however, that the broadcaster made no effort to present significant alternative points of view in an item which discussed a highly controversial issue.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible Programming
Not Upheld (by Majority): Controversial Issues
The host of talkback programme Canterbury Mornings expressed the view that parking wardens in Christchurch were ‘scum’ for ticketing people in the central city, after everything they had been through with the earthquakes. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments were unacceptable, irresponsible and denigrated parking wardens. The comments related to a legitimate issue and were well within the host’s right to free speech, especially given that talkback radio is recognised as a robust and opinionated environment. A caller also challenged the host, so listeners were given a countering perspective.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
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
The hosts of the Jase and Dave Drive Show on Classic Hits joked about a ‘sex drive-in’ in Switzerland and made humorous comparisons with a fast food drive-through. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of sexual innuendo was inappropriate for broadcast. No coarse language was used and inexplicit sexual innuendo is permissible during children’s listening times. The host also indicated the topic may be unsuitable for younger listeners, giving parents and caregivers an opportunity to exercise discretion.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
A 3 News item reported on newly released statistics showing a decline in the number of abortions performed in New Zealand. It included one possible reason why, put forward by the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced because it did not also include the ‘pro-life’ perspective on why the rates were declining. While abortion is a controversial issue of public importance, the fact abortion rates have declined is not, and there has not been any significant debate about the reasons for the decrease. The broadcaster was not required to canvass perspectives for and against abortion given the item was a straightforward report on new statistics.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
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