An item on One News included the results of a Colmar Brunton poll on the percentage of party votes for major political parties. The results allegedly did not take account of “undecided voters”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the accuracy standard: the omission of undecided voters was not material given the focus and context of the item which was the decline in the level of support for the National Party, so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect, and the potential harm in terms of impact on voter participation was not significant given the length of time until the next general election.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The complainant alleged that four items on TVNZ News and Close Up breached standards relating to accuracy or law and order. These included footage of a reporter walking backwards which was considered to be dangerous; a reference to a reference to a wildfire covering “an area of around 15,000 rugby fields”; a comment about “letting loose” in a car that could reach speeds of 130 miles per hour; and a comment about the size of hen cages being “4cm more than conventional cages”.
The Authority declined to determine the complaints on the basis they were frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
Declined to Determine: Law and Order, Accuracy
During Michael Laws Talkback, broadcast on Radio Live, the host interviewed the complainant, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association. The host accused her of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements; he made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle”. The Authority held that this was a serious breach of the fairness standard and the action taken by the broadcaster, in upholding only part of the fairness complaint, was insufficient. The Authority did not uphold the accuracy complaint since the host did not make unqualified statements of fact.
The Authority ordered the broadcast of a statement, including an apology to the complainant.
Upheld: Fairness and Action Taken
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
Order: Broadcast of statement, including apology to complainant
An episode of Last Chance Dogs, a reality television series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners, was broadcast on TV2. It followed three dogs which were taken from their owner by animal control officers because they were not registered and had been aggressive towards other dogs. At the end of the episode a teaser was shown for the next episode, in which the programme’s resident dog trainer was attempting to train one of the three dogs and the dog was shown attacking two dogs in a park. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards: the programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity and the focus was on dogs being removed from their owner because they were not registered; the programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance; and the responsible programming standard was not applicable.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming
The ZM Morning Crew hosts ran a competition called “Racial Profiling”, in which the hosts and a contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards: on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes but the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping, and freedom of expression outweighed the potential harm caused; and the broadcast did not encourage denigration or discrimination, but was an attempt at humour and satire which are recognised as important freedoms of speech.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration
The first episode of The GC, a reality television series following a group of young Māori living on the Gold Coast in Australia, was broadcast on TV3. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the law and order and children’s interests standards: participants were of legal age to drink and were not shown drinking excessively, and it did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity; it was correctly rated PGR and the classification was sufficient to advise parental supervision so no additional warning was required – the sexual references were sufficiently inexplicit, the programme would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers and the content did not warrant a higher classification of Adults Only.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Children’s Interests
An item on 3 News reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic. It included an interview with the victim’s former employer, and the interviewee and reporter both used the term “nutters”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: the term “nutters” was used to refer to a person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness; the item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community, and given the contextual factors viewers would have understood the intended meaning of “nutters”.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on TV3’s 60 Minutes told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 and turned himself in to police 24 years later. It included very brief footage of the front porch of the complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that this was where the murder had taken place. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to the privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards: the complainant was not identifiable through the footage of her house; while the footage and the implication that the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item, so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect; the complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item; and the responsible programming standard was not applicable.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming
During a segment called “Ideas” on Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National, the host interviewed a professor about his creative writing course and about writers and the writing community in general; the professor made comments about a “generation” of New Zealand poets, including A.R.D Fairburn and Denis Glover. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards: the comments did not form part of a “factual programme”, so the controversial issues standard did not apply; this episode of “Ideas” was not “factual programming” to which the accuracy standard applied, and in any event the professor’s comments amounted to his personal opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy; and the fairness standard only applies to individuals and organisations – it does not apply to people who are deceased, or to a “generation of poets”.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
An episode of the cartoon comedy South Park was broadcast on FOUR at 9.30pm. It depicted Queen Elizabeth II committing suicide, following a botched terrorism attempt; the episode was rated Adults Only (AO) and was preceded by a visual and verbal warning. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached the good taste and decency standard: the episode used parody and satire to comment on politics, and freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures; and the content was acceptable during an AO programme screened at 9.30pm.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency