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
During two items on One News the presenters used the term "anti-gay" to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage. The complainant argued that the term was misleading and offensive and denigrated people who opposed same-sex marriage. The Authority considered the use of the term "anti-gay" was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, but it was corrected by the context of the items, which were obviously discussing gay marriage. The term did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage, and viewers would not have been deceived by the use of the term.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
Close Up reported on comments made by the Principal of Pompallier Catholic College in a school newsletter, objecting to gay marriage. The item claimed that the Principal suspended a teacher, who was interviewed by Close Up, and that students who opposed the comments were "threatened". A news ticker on Breakfast the following morning echoed the claims. The school argued the programmes were misleading and unfair, because the teacher was suspended for reasons other than his objection to the Principal's views, and no students were threatened. The Authority found that Close Up did not fairly present the reasons for the suspension, which created an unfairly negative impression of the Principal and the College, who were not given a fair chance to comment. It said the item should have couched the "threats" as allegations or the students' views, rather than unequivocal statements of fact. The Breakfast ticker was not material in the context of the programme.
Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
No Order
An episode of The Carrie Diaries, an American teen drama series, was screened on TV2 at 3pm on a Sunday and contained sexual references and innuendo. The complainant argued it was inappropriate for broadcast during children's viewing times. The Authority considered the programme was correctly classified PGR and broadcast in an appropriate timeslot, and noted it was preceded by a specific warning for sexual content. It found the depiction of sexual content was inexplicit and discreet and would not have offended or distressed most viewers, including supervised children.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children's Interests
An episode of Home and Away, which was classified G, included a storyline about the date rape of a teenage girl. The Authority agreed with the complainant that the theme of rape was unsuitable for unsupervised child viewers and that the programme was incorrectly classified. The Authority made no order, noting that the programme was now screened on another television network.
Upheld: Responsible Programming
No Order
Items on Q + A and Marae Investigates focused on the issue of domestic violence. The complainant argued that the programmes were unbalanced and discriminatory because they did not acknowledge that men could be victims of domestic violence, as well as women. The Authority said the items were clearly framed as focusing on men's violence against women, so it was not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could also be victims. The programmes did not denigrate or discriminate against all men as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s interests
Horace in Slow Motion, a short children's cartoon, showed Horace the pig 'picking his nose and eating it'. The complainant argued this was completely unacceptable by society's standards. The Authority thought the programme used typical children's humour – which the broadcaster referred to as "gross out" humour – and the dialogue in the show acknowledged it was "gross", indicating to children this type of behaviour was not socially acceptable.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
One News reported that 65 police officers had failed their Physical Competency Test (PCT) and that police management were reluctant to discuss the matter. The complainant argued that the item was misleading as it did not indicate what proportion of officers had failed the test, and that the item and footage of someone eating pizza were unfair to, and denigrated, police by portraying them as "fat and unfit". The Authority did not think the item was misleading, and noted that the lack of information was because the police were reluctant to comment. It said the shot of a person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet might be a reason why officers were unfit. The police were given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the story and their response was included.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming