A promo for Beyond the Darklands, a TV One series in which a clinical psychologist profiled notorious New Zealand criminals, included comments about the death of a toddler. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the promo breached the good taste and decency and responsible programming standards: while the subject matter of the upcoming episode was distressing, details of the abuse had been widely reported in the media, the promo was correctly classified PGR and screened during an appropriate host programme (The Force, a reality TV series about the work of police), and the promo itself was reserved and respectful.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
A news item on 1XX News contained a summary of a BSA decision declining to uphold a complaint made by the complainant. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the summary breached the accuracy and balance standards: the item gave a fair summary of the Authority's findings and was not inaccurate or misleading, the brief news report did not amount to a discussion and the Authority's decision was not a controversial issue.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy
An item on 60 Minutes reported on a high profile immigration case involving a Chinese millionaire, disclosing his address and showing footage of his business assistant in the lobby of the apartment building where he lived. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the privacy standard: the address was not disclosed for the purposes of encouraging harassment and there was no evidence that harassment resulted from the disclosure; and the apartment building lobby was accessible to the public so neither the Chinese millionaire nor his business assistant had a reasonable expectation of privacy there.
Not Upheld: Privacy
A promo for Coronation Street, broadcast during Breakfast on TV One, contained a brief image of a woman slapping a man's face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency and children's interests standards: the shot was very brief, Breakfast was an unclassified programme targeted at adults, any children viewing were unlikely to be doing so unsupervised, and the promo would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests
Tarana Drive Time Chit Chat Show, a talkback programme broadcast in Hindi, contained some discussion about "promiscuous characters". In a conversation with a caller, the host made comments about the complainant and her Facebook messages. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the privacy standard: the comments were general only and did not mention identifying features, so it was unlikely the complainant was identifiable beyond those who already knew about her private Facebook messages.
Not Upheld: Privacy
News items on Nightline and 3 News reported on the release of a convicted sex offender, referring to him as "the Beast of Blenheim" and "the Beast". The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the fairness and law and order standards: the label was assigned to the sex offender and the nature of his crimes many years before and was used extensively throughout the media; the broadcasts also contained his legal name; and the use of the label did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
An item on Campbell Live looked at "cheap lunches for kids" as part of a series on child poverty. The reporter interviewed children on their way to school, asking them what they had for breakfast and lunch. The children were obscured by traffic, and had their faces and, in some cases, their clothing pixellated. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the footage breached the privacy standard because the children were not identifiable.
Not Upheld: Privacy
In a radio interview with the founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency, the host of Checkpoint made three references critical of Jamaica. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: the complainant's concerns were matters of personal preference and editorial discretion.
Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
A re-broadcast of an episode of the reality TV series The Inspectors showed an Environmental Health Officer carrying out a routine spot check at a Dunedin fish and chip shop and making critical comments about the state of the premises, downgrading it from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’. The inspection took place in 2009 and the programme was first broadcast on TV One in 2010. The complaint was about the latest broadcast in January 2012. The Authority upheld the complaint that this broadcast breached the privacy and fairness standards: the shop owner was identifiable even though his face was pixellated; any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming; there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later; and it was fundamentally unfair to broadcast footage three years after filming – the disclaimer at the start of the programme was not sufficient to mitigate the unfairness in this respect.
The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the accuracy standard as it did not contain any material inaccuracies. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Privacy, Fairness
Not Upheld: Accuracy
No Order
A news item on Radio New Zealand National about the French and Greek elections reported that “the polls have opened in Greece for parliamentary elections seen as a referendum on the country’s harsh austerity measures”. The Authority first determined that it had jurisdiction to accept the complaint. It did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards: the use of the word “harsh” did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints; the word was not a material point of fact and would not have misled viewers; “harsh” was intended to mean strict or stringent and was not pejorative in this context; upholding the accuracy complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression; and the fairness standard only applies to individuals.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness