BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration

The hosts of the Jase and Dave Drive Show on Classic Hits joked about a ‘sex drive-in’ in Switzerland and made humorous comparisons with a fast food drive-through. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of sexual innuendo was inappropriate for broadcast. No coarse language was used and inexplicit sexual innuendo is permissible during children’s listening times. The host also indicated the topic may be unsuitable for younger listeners, giving parents and caregivers an opportunity to exercise discretion.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming

The host of talkback programme Canterbury Mornings expressed the view that parking wardens in Christchurch were ‘scum’ for ticketing people in the central city, after everything they had been through with the earthquakes. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments were unacceptable, irresponsible and denigrated parking wardens. The comments related to a legitimate issue and were well within the host’s right to free speech, especially given that talkback radio is recognised as a robust and opinionated environment. A caller also challenged the host, so listeners were given a countering perspective.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming

During a late night talkback programme with a fill-in host, a caller expressed her attitude to the Royal family by reference to what she described as ‘Charles raping Diana’. The host challenged this and asked her what she meant. She spoke about how the Queen ‘devised the “three in the bed” scenario’ and how she felt sorry for Diana. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to rape was unacceptable and the host should have terminated the call. It appeared the caller did not mean ‘rape’ in the literal sense, the conversation was not unduly offensive in the context of a late night talkback programme, and the host acted responsibly by asking the caller to clarify her point.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

An episode of Renters showed the inspection of a rental property in circumstances where the tenant was not home. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast breached the tenant’s privacy. By the time of this repeat broadcast in June 2013, the tenant had not lived at the property for some years, so she was not identifiable from the broadcast. Nevertheless the Authority expressed concern about the production company’s ‘usual practice’ of only notifying and obtaining consent from the landlord, and not the tenant.

Not Upheld: Privacy

An item on One News reported on court proceedings involving the complainant, a professional harness racing trainer and driver. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that two statements in the item were inaccurate and unfair, because they allegedly portrayed her as a ‘drugs cheat’ and were misleading. Taking into account all of the charges and the nature of the offending, the statements would not have misled viewers and did not cause any unwarranted harm to the complainant’s reputation.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

A discussion on Nine to Noon of New Zealand's 'three strikes' legislation, the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, was allegedly unbalanced because it involved only participants who opposed the legislation. In addition, the presenter and participants made statements that were alleged to be inaccurate, misleading, unfair and irresponsible. The broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold the other aspects of the complaint. The Authority considered that the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance and while the presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints. The Authority also found that two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment.

Upheld: Balance, Accuracy
Not Upheld: Fairness, Responsible Programming

No Order

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989

Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the ‘three strikes’ legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaint

Findings

Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheld

Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld

No Order

This headnote does not form part of the decision.

During a segment called ‘The Huddle’ on the Larry Williams Drive Show, involving a discussion about the candidates for the Labour Party leadership, one of the panellists commented that a candidate ‘enjoys being stabbed from behind’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and ‘disgusting’ because it allegedly referred to a gay candidate and amounted to ‘double entendre’. The comment was quick and open to more than one interpretation, and even if double entendre of a sexual nature was intended, this was well within the panellist’s right to free speech, and was permissible in the context of a discussion about a legitimate issue, aimed at an adult target audience.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

An item on Fair Go reported on a couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic, and included claims which he was disputing. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair. Though it created a negative impression of the complainant, he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item. The claims were presented as the couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not as points of fact, so viewers would have understood that the claims were one side of the story only and were disputed by the complainant.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

An episode of Futurama, an animated cartoon series, contained sexual references and innuendo. The episode which was classified G (General) screened on FOUR at 6.30pm. The Authority considered that the sexual content was not suitable for unsupervised child viewers and that the episode was incorrectly classified G when it should have been classified PGR. The broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests when incorrectly classifying the episode and screening it in G time

Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests

No Order