During a segment on Breakfast, a guest presenter introduced a web video of a children’s television presenter with the comment, “What happens when you put a man like that through Auto-tune? Suddenly there’s LSD in the water!” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the law and order, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards: the presenter’s comment was brief and light-hearted and viewers would not have been encouraged to break the law; Breakfast is an unclassified news and current affairs programme and the comment would not have distressed or alarmed viewers; the comment was silly and oblique – children would not have appreciated its meaning and would not have been encouraged to take LSD.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
In a segment on Police Ten 7 profiling an aggravated robbery of a bar, a wanted offender was described as “possibly Māori but pale skinned” and “possibly Māori, [with a] light complexion”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard since it did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Māori as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and contained the graphic of a sign: “For Sale, NZ SOEs”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the accuracy standard: the graphic was not a “material point of fact”, and given the extensive coverage of the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) was a Sunday Theatre docudrama based on historical facts about women in New Zealand being given the right to vote in 1893. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that it was inaccurate to claim that New Zealand women were the first to be given the vote: the programme was a docudrama legitimately employing dramatic licence to portray historical events, not a news, current affairs, or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
During Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand National, the host interviewed the chair of the Productivity Commission about the Commission’s recent report to Government on housing affordability. The introduction by the interviewer included the comment, “with section prices actually falling in some of the city’s outlying areas”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this comment was inaccurate: the host’s brief comment in the introduction was not a material point of fact in the context of the interview and would not have materially altered listeners’ understanding of the issues discussed.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
Episodes of Last Chance Dogs, a reality television series on TV2 about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners, featured a resident dog trainer who worked with badly behaved dogs. Her dog training methods were alleged to be outdated and harmful. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programmes breached standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence: they did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases; the programme commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as opinion rather than fact; the episodes were appropriately classified PGR and contained a clear disclaimer; and the display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard. Overall, the Authority considered that the complainant’s objection to the methods shown was not an issue of broadcasting standards.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Responsible Programming, Violence
A news item on Checkpoint allegedly contained certain comments from Radio New Zealand’s economics reporter. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that these comments breached the accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards: the comments identified by the complainant did not match the broadcast time and date specified and the Authority was therefore unable to assess broadcasting standards against those comments.
Declined to Determine: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming
In a One News sports item reporting that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test so Valerie Adams would get her gold medal, the sports reporter joked to the other One News presenters, “If it hasn’t been melted down by a goldsmith in Minsk as we speak.” One of the presenters responded, “Yes, or reclaimed by that crazy president they’ve got”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: the sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
A Close Up item reported on the sentencing of a man convicted of shooting another man in a hunting accident. During a visual reconstruction of a hunting trip, a gun was shown pointing towards the camera; the image was brief and out-of-focus and was on screen for approximately two seconds. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the law and order standard: footage of a gun pointed at the camera, while confronting, did not, when taken in context, encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity.
Not Upheld: Law and Order
During the final episode of MasterChef New Zealand, broadcast at 7.30pm on TV One, the contestants used the words “crapping” and “pissed off”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard: the language used was low-level and would not have offended most viewers in the context of a PGR programme.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency