An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3, reported on voluntary euthanasia in the context of New Zealand law. The item included interviews with two strong advocates of euthanasia. Taking into account the focus of the item and the nature of issue, the Authority did not uphold the complaint that it breached the controversial issues standard: euthanasia is a controversial issue of public importance, and the item did not purport to discuss all the arguments for and against euthanasia but was presented from the perspective of one of the advocates. Euthanasia is a long-running moral issue with an ongoing period of current interest, and alternative viewpoints were adequately included.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
Items on 1XX News, broadcast on One-Double-X, reported on repeat complaints about campaign overspending by the successful candidate in the 2010 Whakatane local body elections and stated: “Detective Inspector [name] says the Independent Police Conduct Authority determined [the police] investigation was thorough and followed correct procedure. The Ombudsman backed this up.” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards: the focus of the item was the repeat complaints and not the adequacy or otherwise of the police investigation into overspending and the brief news updates did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance; the statement was not a material point of fact but was clearly attributed to the detective inspector and reflected the contents of the police press release, and the distinction between “thorough” and “adequate” was not material.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy
An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One, profiled the complainant and introduced him by referring to some of his previous complaints, including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy and fairness standards: the item did not suggest that all or most of Mr McDonald’s complaints were unfounded but that he complained “too often about too little”; it provided a context to the complaints, and the complainant was able to put forward his own perspective. Accuracy was subsumed into the Authority’s discussion of fairness.
Not Upheld: Fairness
Subsumed: Accuracy (into Fairness)
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
An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm, reported on a “strip club turf war” in Wellington and contained footage of a stripper wearing only a G-string and dancing erotically. The broadcaster upheld the initial complaint that this breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards, apologising to the complainant and counselling its editorial staff to prevent a similar breach. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient.
Not Upheld (Action Taken): Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests
At approximately 9.11pm during Kerre Woodham Talkback, the host said, “You fricken moron”, in response to a caller’s comment that having a disability was the result of “inbreeding”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comment breached the good taste and decency and responsible programming standards: the comment was broadcast after 9pm during a talkback programme targeted at adults, it would not have surprised or offended most listeners, and its broadcast in this context was not socially irresponsible.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
During the ZM drive show Jay, Flynny and Jacqui, one of the hosts told a personal anecdote about a prank she committed in her youth, namely setting off a fire alarm, “resulting in all of Timaru’s fire engines turning up”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments breached the law and order standard: the anecdote was a light-hearted recollection of the host’s actions in her youth intended to entertain, but with an educational message – the host made comments condemning her own behaviour and noting the repercussions – and the story did not invite imitation or otherwise encourage listeners to break the law.
Not Upheld: Law and Order
In an interview on Radio New Zealand National’s Checkpoint the Executive Director of the Rape Prevention Education Group stated, “I think our focus has to be on the safety of our children, and we know that approximately one in four girls and one in eight boys are likely to experience some form of sexual violence before the age of 16”. RNZ News later reported, “The group’s executive director, Kim McGregor, claims . . .” and repeated the figures. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the statement breached the accuracy standard: the Director’s comment was not a statement of fact but reflected her views and experiences, and was presented from an advocacy perspective, the figures were approximates and, while contentious, were supported by some independent research.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The question for the Authority was whether a complaint had been submitted within the time allowed. The complainant submitted two formal complaints about two broadcasts on Fair Go, using the broadcaster’s online complaint form. The broadcaster declined to accept the second complaint on the basis that it was out of time. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989 formal complaints must be lodged in writing with the broadcaster within 20 working days after the programme has screened. The complainant submitted his online complaint shortly before midnight on 28 June, the 20th working day after the broadcast. The definition of “working day” in section 2 of the Act specifies days of the year that are to be excluded but not times of day. The Authority held that the ordinary meaning of a “day” runs from midnight to midnight and that the complaint should have been accepted by the broadcaster. The Authority made an order directing the complaint back to the broadcaster to be accepted and considered as a formal complaint.
Order: Broadcaster to accept and consider complaint as a formal complaint
During a discussion about gay marriage on Newstalk ZB’s Overnight Talkback, the host described the complainant, a caller, as “incredibly rude”. The host read out a fax from the complainant and repeated the word “homophobic” while spelling out “faggot”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments breached the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards: while it was clear that the host disagreed with the complainant’s views, he did allow the complainant an opportunity to present his perspective and he was not abusive towards him; and the host’s use of the word “homophobic” and spelling out of “faggot” did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration