BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

A One News item reporting on Family Planning’s call for sex education in schools for younger children, included brief footage of Miley Cyrus’ performance at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards. Consistent with two previous decisions, the Authority did not uphold complaints that the footage was inappropriate to show during the news. Given recent widespread publicity of the performance, it was a relevant example of the kind of sexualised images Family Planning was concerned younger audiences were being exposed to. Unclassified news programmes often contain material unsuitable for children and some adult supervision is expected.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Children’s Interests

An episode of This Town showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this encouraged cruelty to animals and was inappropriately rated G. While some viewers may have found the footage unpleasant, it was not unexpected or gratuitous as the subject matter was well signposted, and it highlighted the reality that we live in a society which eats meat and that animals must be killed and prepared in order for this to occur.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

A Fair Go item reported on the New Zealand Industrial Fuel Duty Agency (NZIFDA), a business set up to obtain refunds, on behalf of eligible customers, for excise duty placed on off-road fuel usage in some instances. A former employee of NZIFDA criticised the business and the person who ran it. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the person who ran the business, that the item was inaccurate and misleading and used ‘loaded’ language to suggest wrongdoing. The item was clearly framed from the perspective of the former employee, her comments were clearly her personal opinion, the complainant was given a reasonable opportunity to give a response, and his response was fairly included in the programme.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

A presenter on Radio New Zealand Concert introduced a piece of music, saying the composer was ‘considered to be a degenerate in Germany because of his Jewish origins’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the announcer’s comment was in bad taste and denigrated Jewish people. The comment was simply a factual statement giving context to the composer’s work, and was a reference to how he was viewed by the Nazis, not an expression of the presenter’s personal opinion.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration

During Vicious, a British sitcom about two older men in a long-term relationship, one of the main characters exclaimed ‘Jesus Christ!’ in response to seeing a couple kissing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the remark was blasphemous and offensive to Christians. The use of variants of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation does not amount to coarse language in modern secular society. Here it was intended to be humorous rather than abusive or offensive, and it was acceptable in context.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

A song titled ‘I’m Not Real’ was broadcast on Base Breakfast at about 9.25am, and contained the lyrics ‘bitches’, ‘ass’, ‘hoes’ and variants of ‘fuck’. The Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast of these expletives in this timeslot breached standards of good taste and decency. The Authority did not make any order, noting that the broadcaster had acknowledged the broadcast was unacceptable, and that the decision would provide sufficient guidance going forward.

Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

No Order

A One News item reported on a new prenatal test for Down Syndrome. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item discriminated against people with Down Syndrome and was unbalanced because it did not show a situation where identifying a baby with Down Syndrome was viewed positively. Comments suggesting that a low probability of having a baby with Down Syndrome was ‘good news’ were clearly the personal opinions of the interviewees and were not endorsed by the programme. The item itself made no judgement about the test or the outcome of testing in terms of whether a foetus diagnosed as having Down Syndrome was a good or a bad thing. The item was squarely focused on the benefits of the new test in that it was more accurate, and less invasive than other procedures. The item would not have distressed child viewers and did not discuss a controversial issue requiring the presentation of other views.

Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration, Children’s Interests

A One News item reported highlights of the ‘2013 MTV Video Music Awards’ and included footage of a female artist, Miley Cyrus, performing a provocative dance called ‘twerking’ while wearing a nude-coloured PVC bikini. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the footage was inappropriate for broadcast during the news. The footage, while not to everyone’s taste, was relatively brief in the context of the item, which featured a number of highlights, and gave a flavour of what had occurred without being gratuitous. The inclusion of the footage was relevant in illustrating why the performance had generated worldwide media attention. Overall, the item was acceptable in the context of an unclassified news programme targeted at adults.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming

A One News item reported an accident involving a truck and a motorcycle. On the basis it was frivolous and trivial, the Authority declined to determine the complaint that the item’s use of the word ‘biker’ gave the impression the motorcyclist was a ‘reckless’ gang member and had caused the accident. ‘Biker’ was a colloquial term referring to the driver of a motorbike, and in any case the words ‘biker’ and ‘motorcylist’ were used interchangeably.

Declined to Determine: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration

During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product. What Now did not undermine the seriousness of the issue, but raised awareness of allergies in a way that would appeal to children, that was simplistic, humorous and entertaining.

Not Upheld: Responsible Programming