During live talkback on the election “tea tapes” story, Radio Live host Michael Laws commented that “the media have gone mad, rabid. If I had a gun I’d shoot them, put them out of their misery, because they have gone rabid and they may infect others.” He went on to specifically mention the Herald on Sunday and questioned why someone hadn’t taken a shotgun and “cleaned out the entire news room”. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that these comments breached the good taste and decency standard: the combination of the length of the statement, its repeated use of graphic imagery, its specificity in relation to identified journalists and its mode of delivery made the statement unacceptable. Notwithstanding the importance of freedom of expression, Mr Laws’ comments went too far. The Authority made no order. In a minority decision, one member argued that the broadcast did not breach the good taste and decency standard because of the context of talkback radio and Mr Laws’ style, and the use of an accepted and well understood colloquialism. The Authority unanimously did not uphold the complaint that the words breached the law and order standard.
Upheld (Majority): Good Taste and Decency
Not Upheld: Law and Order
No Order
An item on Campbell Live reported on a disabled boy who was left alone on a school bus for four-and-a-half hours. The item included footage of an interview with the manager of the bus company responsible. The Authority did not uphold the manager’s complaint that this breached her privacy: while the complainant could have been identified, the item did not disclose any private facts about her in a manner that would be considered highly offensive.
Not Upheld: Privacy
During an episode of Bomber’s Blog, broadcast on Triangle TV at 9.45pm, the presenter used offensive language while reviewing the week’s political news. The same language was displayed onscreen. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard: political commentary and satire are important forms of speech, and taking into account relevant contextual factors most viewers would not have been offended by the language used.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
An episode of the reality TV series Police Ten 7 reported on an alleged assault and robbery at a supermarket car park in Wellington. The police interviewed the victim, a man with cerebral palsy and consequent speech impairment. The voiceover made comments questioning the veracity of the victim’s story and the broadcast included two shots of his footwear, a pair of women’s high heels. The Authority upheld the fairness complaint: the man was not adequately informed of the nature of the programme and of his participation, and there was insufficient public interest to justify broadcasting the footage without first informing him. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the privacy, accuracy, and discrimination and denigration standards: the man was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place; the commentary reflected the unusual circumstances and genuine views of the police; and the discrimination and denigration standard does not apply to individuals and the broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
No Order
During the Leighton Smith Show on Newstalk ZB, the host discussed verdicts in the Urewera Four case. The complainant phoned the programme and the host subsequently made comments about “nut bars” in New Zealand. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard: the standard only applies to sections of the community and not to individuals; it was unclear which section of the community the complainant considered was denigrated or discriminated against; and the host’s comments were clearly his personal opinion and were not specifically directed at the complainant.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration
An item on Campbell Live reported on bullying at Massey High School. The Authority determined that it does not have jurisdiction to accept a referral of the privacy aspect of the complaint. Massey High School did not refer its complaint to the Authority within the statutory timeframe and the original complaint did not constitute a direct privacy referral.
Declined to Accept Referral
An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm, reported on bullying and fighting at Massey High School and showed repeated footage of girls fighting. It was not preceded by a warning. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the item breached standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence. The students shown in the footage were not identifiable to anyone beyond those who already knew about the fighting; the impression created about fighting and bullying at Massey stemmed from the facts of the incident and the response of students and parents; Massey was provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment and its statement was adequately referred to in the item; and while a warning would have been helpful, given the nature and context of the footage the broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests in broadcasting the footage during a current affairs programme at 7pm.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests, Violence
A TV One documentary entitled A Rotten Shame investigated New Zealand’s leaky homes crisis and sought to expose systematic failures in the building industry that had led to the crisis. The presenter door-stepped a building inspector responsible for inspecting a house eleven years earlier, which had since developed serious problems and had to be demolished. A portion of this interview was included in the programme. The building inspector complained that this breached the controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority held that the action taken by the broadcaster in upholding the door-stepping aspect of the fairness complaint was insufficient. The Authority did not uphold any other part of the complaint: the item focused on systematic failures which led to the leaky homes crisis rather than on the complainant, it included the complainant’s viewpoint, and it did not create a misleading impression about the complainant’s culpability. The Authority ordered TVNZ to pay $500 towards the complainant’s legal costs.
Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken)
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
Order: $500 costs to complainant
An item on 3 News reported on the alleged practice of women offering sex in exchange for taxi rides. The item consisted primarily of a voiceover accompanied by nightlife footage of central Auckland, including shots of a number of young women, some of them in taxis. The Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached standards relating to privacy, good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and violence. Only one of the complainants was identifiable but the item did not disclose any private facts about her, and the footage was clearly not suggesting that the women were associated with the practice reported on (which was reinforced by a clarification broadcast the following night). The item did not comment on the issue of sexual assault or make any general comments about women, and it did not contain any violence.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence
An episode of Embarrassing Bodies, a reality television series about the treatment of embarrassing medical conditions, was broadcast on TV2 at 8.30pm and included close-up shots of women’s vaginas and of surgical operations being performed on them. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests: the programme had educational value and the nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact; the programme was correctly classified AO and preceded by an adequate warning for nudity and medical scenes; and the clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests