BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

A One News item reported on controversy surrounding a performance by female artist Miley Cyrus at the ‘2013 MTV Video Music Awards’ where she engaged in a provocative dance called ‘twerking’ while wearing a nude-coloured PVC bikini. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the footage was offensive to broadcast during prime time family viewing. The footage was provocative and challenging, but was relevant as it illustrated for viewers why the performance had attracted worldwide publicity. Earlier coverage and the presenter’s introduction signposted the likely content and gave viewers an opportunity to exercise discretion. The item did not threaten standards of good taste and decency in the context of an unclassified news programme targeted at adults.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

During a panel discussion on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show about the government’s funding of America’s Cup campaigners, one of the panellists said ‘fucking’. She immediately apologised for the slip-up, and the other participants rebuked her in a light-hearted manner. The broadcaster upheld the complaint and counselled the panellist. The Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. It noted the comment was made during a legitimate discussion about a matter of public interest, and all of the participants acknowledged at the time that the swearing was inappropriate.

Not Upheld (Action Taken): Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming

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

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

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

In two items broadcast a week apart on Seven Sharp, the presenters made comments about the leader of the Conservative Party, Colin Craig, relating to his opposition to the Marriage (Definition) Amendment Bill. The Authority did not uphold the complaints relating to the first broadcast, as it was balanced and was not unfair to Colin Craig. However, the second broadcast, which was a satirical piece, went too far and amounted to a personal attack on Colin Craig which was unfair. The Authority ordered the broadcast of a statement including an apology to Colin Craig, and $1,500 costs to the Crown.

Upheld: Fairness

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Violence

Orders: Broadcast statement, $1,500 costs to Crown

An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact. A majority of the Authority was satisfied that the item did not breach the balance standard, finding that the nature of the programme and the topic meant that viewers would have interpreted the predictions with some scepticism and would be aware of different positions in the debate about climate change. The minority felt, however, that the broadcaster made no effort to present significant alternative points of view in an item which discussed a highly controversial issue.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible Programming
Not Upheld (by Majority): Controversial Issues

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

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