A political commentator on Nine to Noon made comments about the background to negotiations between the Government and Rio Tinto over the Tiwai Point smelter. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were inaccurate: they amounted to the panellist's opinion, not statements of fact, and were high value speech.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
An item on 60 Minutes, "The Two Dads Story", reported on a same-sex couple and their experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the controversial issues standard: the item did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance as it focused on the couple's personal story, and so it did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
When talking about an interview with a Kiwi actor on Seven Sharp, one presenter commented, "I was about as popular as a wet fart in a wedding dress". The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard: the comment was a brief, throwaway remark used to convey the meaning that the presenter was unpopular.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
During the Jay-Jay, Mike & Dom Show, the hosts discussed a controversial tweet Dom had posted about The X Factor NZ. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to responsible programming and discrimination and denigration: the broadcast sparked debate about the acceptability of the tweet and whether it was sexist, and contained views both for and against the tweet and the criticism it attracted; and the hosts' comment did not encourage discrimination or denigration against any sections of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Breakfast, entitled “Daycare vs Homecare”, included an interview with the President of the Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education as opposed to daycare. It contained comments by the President that reflected negatively on daycare. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item was unbalanced: it discussed a controversial issue of public importance and the interview was framed as a debate about the merits of daycare versus homecare, but the item itself had the flavour of an advertorial, and taking into account the likely audience, insufficient balance was provided and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints.
The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Controversial Issues
No Order
A 3 News bulletin reported on the granting of parole to a man jailed in relation to the so-called “Urewera anti-terror raids”. The newsreader said men were “jailed over military-style training camps” and the item showed a photograph of Tame Iti wearing a balaclava-type headpiece and holding a gun. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the report breached the accuracy, controversial issues and fairness standards: while the newsreader’s statement was technically inaccurate, the position was immediately clarified when the newsreader said the men were sentenced for firearms offences; and the photograph of Tame Iti was relevant to the subject matter. The newsreader’s introductory comment and the photograph did not create an unfair impression that the men were terrorists; and the item did not contain a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance requiring the presentation of alternative viewpoints.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
In two interviews the host of Cruise FM made comments that were critical of, and threatening towards, local council members and a rival radio station. The Authority upheld the complaint that the comments were unfair. The comments were personally abusive and had the potential to be very damaging, and the host abused his position by using the airwaves to discredit council members and staff at a rival radio station. The Authority ordered the radio station to broadcast a statement and also to pay costs to the Crown of $2,500.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
Orders: Broadcast of statement, $2,500 costs to Crown
An episode of Shortland Street on TV2 showed characters smoking cigarettes and dropping their cigarette butts on the ground. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency, and law and order standards: the footage was acceptable in context and relevant to the developing storyline. It was well within the broadcaster’s right to employ dramatic licence.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order
During Afternoons with Jim Mora on Radio New Zealand National, the host and panellists discussed a coroner’s recommendation, with one panellist criticising the recommendation and stating, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration: the panellist’s comment was flippant and not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts; and it was aimed at the coroner in his professional capacity, rather than being personally abusive.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
An episode of High Country Rescue, a reality series which followed police and search and rescue volunteers, profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died. The episode made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the privacy and fairness standards: the complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard; the complainant was not identifiable and no private facts were disclosed; and no footage of the complainant was broadcast. In any case, the programme producers and the broadcaster showed due sensitivity and discretion.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness