An item on 60 Minutes, "The Two Dads Story", reported on a same-sex couple and their experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the controversial issues standard: the item did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance as it focused on the couple's personal story, and so it did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
All Decisions
When talking about an interview with a Kiwi actor on Seven Sharp, one presenter commented, "I was about as popular as a wet fart in a wedding dress". The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard: the comment was a brief, throwaway remark used to convey the meaning that the presenter was unpopular.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
During the Jay-Jay, Mike & Dom Show, the hosts discussed a controversial tweet Dom had posted about The X Factor NZ. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to responsible programming and discrimination and denigration: the broadcast sparked debate about the acceptability of the tweet and whether it was sexist, and contained views both for and against the tweet and the criticism it attracted; and the hosts' comment did not encourage discrimination or denigration against any sections of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
In the first episode of Harry, a fictional crime drama series set in South Auckland, a detective investigated a spate of robberies. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached standards relating to discrimination and denigration, law and order, good taste and decency, violence, and accuracy. The programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, South Pacific people as a section of the community; the depiction of criminal activity in a fictional drama did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity; the sexual content was brief and inexplicit and preceded by a warning for sexual material; the content complained about did not constitute violence, and in any event, the broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion by classifying the programme AO, screening it at 9.30pm, and using a specific pre-broadcast warning; and the accuracy standard does not apply to fictional programmes.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence
An item on Seven Sharp reporting on violence against women contained instrumental excerpts from the song "Smack My Bitch Up" playing in the background. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard: only viewers who knew the song would have recognised it from the instrumental excerpts; and the use of these excerpts did not undermine the important message of the segment but drew attention to, and raised awareness of, the issue.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
In a promo for Seven Sharp, the presenter referred to the ongoing Novopay debacle and said, "how many of us still give a toss?" The Authority declined to determine the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard on the basis that it was frivolous.
Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency
An item on Breakfast, entitled “Daycare vs Homecare”, included an interview with the President of the Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education as opposed to daycare. It contained comments by the President that reflected negatively on daycare. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item was unbalanced: it discussed a controversial issue of public importance and the interview was framed as a debate about the merits of daycare versus homecare, but the item itself had the flavour of an advertorial, and taking into account the likely audience, insufficient balance was provided and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints.
The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Controversial Issues
No Order
A 3 News item reported on the findings of an investigation into the actions of New Zealand’s intelligence agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and the Government’s proposed response to those findings. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that two statements about the governing legislation were inaccurate: the item focused on the key finding that the legislation was ambiguous, and the statements were not inaccurate or misleading when taken in this context.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
In a One News item broadcast on Waitangi Day, the presenter referred to the Treaty of Waitangi as “the nation’s founding document”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate: the reporter’s description was not a material point of fact to which the standard applied and the description would not have misled viewers in the context of the item.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
During Michael Laws Talkback the host expressed the view that medical personnel were deliberately
overmedicating patients with dementia, causing them to die. He used the term “zombie” when referring to a person with dementia. The complainant called the station to challenge the host’s comments but was cut off. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration: broadcasters have the right to screen calls, as a matter of editorial discretion; the host did not make any derogatory or abusive comments but simply chose not to engage with the complainant; and the use of the term “zombie” was not vitriolic or an attack against people with dementia – the host was expressing his opinion and comments were typical of his style.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration