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
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
Two items on Checkpoint, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National, discussed the results of a recent “clamp down” on drug-taking truck drivers in New Zealand and Australia. The items included interviews with the CEO of the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency and with a representative of First Union, the union for road transport workers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the items breached the controversial issues standard: consideration of whether drug-taking by truck drivers is a widespread problem in New Zealand, and the implications for road safety, did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – at this stage it is not an issue that has been widely discussed or debated publicly – but the broadcaster nevertheless provided some balance in the items.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
During the Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show on The Edge, the hosts discussed charges being faced by radio broadcaster Iain Stables, following an altercation with his ex-girlfriend’s parents. They commented that he was guilty and discussed his bipolar condition. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached his privacy: Iain Stables was identifiable but the programme did not reveal any private facts about him because information about the charges he faced, his previous altercations, and the fact that he had bipolar disorder, was already in the public domain.
Not Upheld: Privacy
A One News item reported on a recent study by the University of Otago into the effects of 1080 poison on native robins. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming. The use of 1080 as a method for pest control in New Zealand is a controversial issue of public importance which has been the subject of ongoing debate, and the item contributed a new development in the debate; viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of arguments on both sides of the debate, and the programme presented significant viewpoints to an extent that was appropriate given the nature of the issue. The allegedly inaccurate statements were not material to the focus of the item and would not have materially altered viewers’ understanding of the broadcast, and the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead by interviewing the Professor who conducted the study.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming
Two episodes of Piha Rescue, a reality TV series following the work of lifeguards at Piha Beach, showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha. In the second episode there was a confrontation between a surfing instructor, who had his face pixellated, and members of the Piha Surf Lifesaving Club when the lifeguards attempted to rescue students and the instructor resisted. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episodes breached the fairness and accuracy standards: no surf school was named in the 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only, and the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard. The 19 March episode captured events as they played out and the footage was not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident, the complainant was not identifiable and his perspective was clear from his comments in the item and from the narrator’s statement at the end of the segment, and the police presence was not emphasised. The statements subject to complaint amounted to the opinion and comment of the lifeguards and patrol captains on duty, as presented by the narrator, and were not statements of fact so were exempt from standards of accuracy.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
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
When the hosts of the Willie and JT Show were discussing an industrial dispute at the Ports of Auckland, one host expressed his support for the striking workers by saying, for example, “I hope they get aggressive down there at the wharf”, “Go and bust your pickets over some of these scabs”, and, “I am into militant action.” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments breached the law and order and responsible programming standards: the comments amounted to the host’s vehemently expressed opinion and listeners would not have taken them seriously; the broadcast did not encourage listeners to engage in unlawful activity, taking into account the host’s later retractions and other contextual factors; and upholding a complaint about high value protest speech like this would unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. The complaint about responsible programming was subsumed into consideration of law and order.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Responsible Programming
In a segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” on the Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show, broadcast on The Edge, the hosts joked about the names of athletes, including athletes from China, South Korea and Australia. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: the comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour and the focus was on the athletes’ names, not their nationalities; the comments did not carry any invective or encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community; and they were not socially irresponsible.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Close Up, a current affairs programme broadcast on TV One, reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement. The item profiled an ex-congregation member, X, who claimed she had made substantial donations to the church which left her in a position of financial hardship. The item contained hidden camera footage of a Bishop and Pastor preaching to a large audience about tithes and donations. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the item breached standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming. Though X was identifiable and the item disclosed private facts about her, she was a willing participant and there was insufficient evidence to show she had withdrawn her consent to the broadcast. The Bishop and the Pastor were identifiable in the hidden camera footage but they did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public; in any event the public interest defence applied. The item was clearly framed as X’s opinion and included opinions from members in support of the church. UCKG was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and its statement was adequately summarised in the item. The item did not amount to a “discussion” of a controversial issue, and in any event the broadcaster made reasonable efforts, and gave reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints. The comments did not carry the level of invective necessary to encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming