A One News item reported on funding cuts to the telephone support service for victims of rape and sexual assault. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the controversial issues and discrimination and denigration standards because it allegedly portrayed only women as victims and not men: the focus was on funding cuts to the service not the gender of perpetrators and victims of sexual violence, so was not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue; and it did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration
During a segment on Breakfast, a programme broadcast from 6am to 9am, a presenter referred to a Tip Top ice cream competition and advised viewers how to enter the competition. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the segment was covertly advertising Tip Top, in breach of the responsible programming and children’s interests standards: promotions of this nature are now commonplace and the promotion of Tip Top was overt so viewers would not have been deceived or disadvantaged; the complainant’s concern about obesity and diabetes among children is not an issue of broadcasting standards but rather a wider policy issue; and the broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching.
Not Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
A brief news item on Radio New Zealand News reported that a pedestrian had been hit by a bus in central Wellington. The item incorrectly referred to St John Ambulance as having transported the woman to hospital – in Wellington ambulance services are operated by Wellington Free Ambulance which is a separate organisation. However, the Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to St John Ambulance breached the accuracy and fairness standards: the reference was not material to the focus of the item and would not have misled listeners in any material respect, and Wellington Free Ambulance was not referred to so listeners would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of it as an organisation.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
An item on Checkpoint reported that an Anglican Minister had been suspended for removing children from a youth camp to protect them from a man he believed was a sexual predator. The Authority upheld the complaint that the church and the Bishop had been treated unfairly: the broadcaster did not have a sufficient foundation for broadcasting such serious allegations and did not provide any corroborating evidence, and though the church was provided with a fair opportunity to comment, the item failed to adequately present their response. The Authority did not agree that the item breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards: it did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance and the Authority was not in a position to determine whether the impression of the alleged offending was misleading. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy
No Order
Two items on Fair Go investigated claims about a wooden gate manufacturer. Customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director, and the item contained footage, filmed from a public footpath, of the company director at his workshop. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: no private facts were disclosed about the director, and footage taken on his property was not broadcast; the impression created about him and his company was based on the opinions of customers, which were exempt from standards of accuracy; the director was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and the item included comprehensive summaries of his statement; and the broadcast was accurate in all material respects and would not have misled viewers on the essential issues.
Not Upheld: Good taste and Decency, Law and Order, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Spectrum on Radio New Zealand National reported on The Nelson Ark APART programme, an eight-week dog training course designed to teach young people discipline, compassion and tolerance through empathy. A young female graduate was asked about her background and how she came to be on the programme. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item had breached her privacy: the woman was not identifiable; she did not say she was raped, as the complainant alleged; and no private facts were disclosed in a manner that would be considered highly offensive, as the woman was a willing participant.
Not Upheld: Privacy
A segment on 3 News: Firstline included an interview with a spokesperson from the Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding a proposed amendment to the Parole Act 2002. The spokesperson expressed her view that the amendment “did not go far enough” and that parole hearings should be abolished altogether. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the controversial issues standard: 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 accepted that it had not made reasonable efforts, or given reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints. The Authority did not find a breach of the accuracy and fairness standards: the statements amounted to comment and opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy, the item was not misleading, and parole board members, prisoners, and victims of crime were all treated fairly. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Controversial Issues
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
No Order
During a live broadcast from Riccarton Park Racecourse, one of the hosts of the ZM drive show Jay, Flynny & Jacqui, said to her co-hosts, “You’ve obviously watched the race. I know you haven’t put any bets on because you’re both Jews.” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard: the comment was ignorant and perpetuated stereotypes but did not reach the high threshold necessary for encouraging the denigration of, or discrimination against, Jewish people as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration
An episode of What’s Really In Our Food?, a weekly television series investigating different food groups, and exploring the potential health benefits and/or risks associated with those foods, contained a fun human experiment to test the effects of Omega 3 on the attention span of young boys. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the accuracy standard: the experiment was clearly intended to be light-hearted and entertaining and did not purport to be scientifically rigorous or reliable, the conclusions drawn from the experiment were vague, and viewers would not have been misled.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
A One News item reported on a “skimming” scheme in which the accused allegedly “fleeced money from customers who used eftpos machines inside at least one Auckland business”. The item referred to and showed footage of the Brooklyn Bar in Auckland where, according to one customer, he had had his card “skimmed”. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the accuracy and fairness standards: the item wrongly singled out and identified the Brooklyn Bar as having been targeted by the fraud, which created the impression the business was unsafe; the complainant was not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and correct the information; and the broadcaster failed to make proper inquiries. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
No Order