At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter made reference to ‘bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets’ in relation to a photo of a cruise ship. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was inaccurate and in poor taste. While derogatory, it did not reach the threshold for threatening current norms of good taste and decency. The comment was an off-the-cuff remark delivered in a light-hearted tone, without invective, and was obviously intended to be humorous.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
The complainant made a direct privacy complaint about a discussion on Chinese Voice Radio, alleging that it breached her child’s privacy because it disclosed details of her dental treatment. The Authority found that the broadcast did not breach any individual’s privacy, as no one was identifiable in the broadcast. The complainant’s concerns about the dentist’s actions and the disclosure of details about the treatment were more appropriately dealt with by other agencies.
Not Upheld: Privacy
A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence in Christchurch following the earthquakes. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that re-enactments showing domestic violence denigrated men and were ‘gender biased’. The Authority has previously declined to uphold a similar complaint from the complainant, which ought to have put him notice of the likely outcome of this decision. The re-enactments were visual wallpaper only, and the gender of the actors was not material.
Declined to Determine: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration
An item on 3 News: Firstline reported on the Westminster Dog Show. In response to a question whether there was a Pit Bull division in the competition, one of the presenters commented, ‘I highly doubt it. Imagine what their owners would look like.’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was highly offensive to, and denigrated, Pit Bull owners. Pit Bull owners are not a section of the community, and the comment was clearly an off-the-cuff, light-hearted joke delivered without invective.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration
A special investigation on Native Affairs reported the concerns of some members of Kōhanga Reo about the governance and management of Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. The report focused on allegations that the trust board had too much power and not enough accountability, and its alleged mismanagement of public funds. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the trust board that the story was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. The story had very high public interest and was a legitimate investigation of the financial activities of the trust and its subsidiary, Te Pātaka Ōhanga. The story was largely framed as being from the perspective of the interviewees, and the trust was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the claims made.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Fairness
An item on Native Affairs, entitled ‘Bones of Contention’, reported on the discovery of ‘kōiwi’ (human remains) at a development site in Devonport, and apparent tensions between iwi and the owner and developer of the site, Redback Develop Ltd. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from Redback that the item contained inaccurate information about the development and the discovery of kōiwi, and that some guests who took part in a panel discussion made misleading comments. The broadcaster treated Redback fairly and made reasonable efforts to put forward Redback’s position, by inviting onto the programme the individual who it had been referred to as the appropriate person to comment.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Controversial Issues
During 3 News: Firstline, TV3’s political correspondent commented that Colin Craig was the ‘toilet paper’ of conservative politics and ‘he’s got the Christians [voting for him]’. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that these comments were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. The segment clearly comprised the correspondent’s own analysis and commentary rather than statements of fact, so viewers would not have been misled and the broadcaster was not required to present other views. As the leader of a political party, Mr Craig should expect criticism and scrutiny, so the comments were not unfair.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
During Arts on Sunday an audio clip from a movie being reviewed was broadcast, in which a character from the movie said ‘frigging’. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that this low level language breached standards of good taste and decency. It was fleeting and innocuous and broadcast as part of a movie review targeted at adults.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
The complainant alleged that four programmes broadcast by TVNZ breached the accuracy standard. These included references to the ‘top prize’ on Lotto Big Wednesday; a ‘no junk mail’ sign in a Seven Sharp item; references to the area affected by a snow storm in the United States; and news items about Fonterra. The Authority declined to determine all four complaints on the basis they were frivolous, trivial and vexatious. Viewers would not have been misled, and Mr McDonald continues to refer similar complaints to the Authority despite its previous decisions.
Declined to Determine: Accuracy
A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy.
Upheld: Fairness, Privacy
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
Orders: Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $5,500