A One News item reported on funding cuts to the telephone support service for victims of rape and sexual assault. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the controversial issues and discrimination and denigration standards because it allegedly portrayed only women as victims and not men: the focus was on funding cuts to the service not the gender of perpetrators and victims of sexual violence, so was not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue; and it did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration
A promo for TV One's Friday Night of Comedy contained footage from episodes that had already screened. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the responsible programming and accuracy standards: a comedy promo is not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies; and the promo was generic and promoted the programme series, as opposed to specific upcoming episodes.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible Programming
An item on Close Up on TV One reported on the controversy around the establishment of an abortion clinic in Invercargill, and the strong opposition from 'pro-life' group Southlanders For Life. The item included interviews with a 'pro-life' representative and a 'pro-choice' representative. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration. The item did not suggest that all 'pro-life' groups were violent; the perspective of Southlanders For Life, including its position on violence, was reflected fairly and its representative treated impartially. The reporter's general statement about violence committed by a 'pro-life' group in America was accurate, and the item was not required to define abortion or to include images of aborted babies. The item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
An item on Close Up on TV One reported on a man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes. The presenter jokingly asked the man if he wanted a cigarette. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the presenter's comments breached standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming: the man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour, and the comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming
During a segment on Breakfast, a programme broadcast from 6am to 9am, a presenter referred to a Tip Top ice cream competition and advised viewers how to enter the competition. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the segment was covertly advertising Tip Top, in breach of the responsible programming and children’s interests standards: promotions of this nature are now commonplace and the promotion of Tip Top was overt so viewers would not have been deceived or disadvantaged; the complainant’s concern about obesity and diabetes among children is not an issue of broadcasting standards but rather a wider policy issue; and the broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching.
Not Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
An item on Spectrum on Radio New Zealand National reported on The Nelson Ark APART programme, an eight-week dog training course designed to teach young people discipline, compassion and tolerance through empathy. A young female graduate was asked about her background and how she came to be on the programme. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item had breached her privacy: the woman was not identifiable; she did not say she was raped, as the complainant alleged; and no private facts were disclosed in a manner that would be considered highly offensive, as the woman was a willing participant.
Not Upheld: Privacy
An episode of What’s Really In Our Food?, a weekly television series investigating different food groups, and exploring the potential health benefits and/or risks associated with those foods, contained a fun human experiment to test the effects of Omega 3 on the attention span of young boys. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the accuracy standard: the experiment was clearly intended to be light-hearted and entertaining and did not purport to be scientifically rigorous or reliable, the conclusions drawn from the experiment were vague, and viewers would not have been misled.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
A brief news item on Radio New Zealand News reported that a pedestrian had been hit by a bus in central Wellington. The item incorrectly referred to St John Ambulance as having transported the woman to hospital – in Wellington ambulance services are operated by Wellington Free Ambulance which is a separate organisation. However, the Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to St John Ambulance breached the accuracy and fairness standards: the reference was not material to the focus of the item and would not have misled listeners in any material respect, and Wellington Free Ambulance was not referred to so listeners would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of it as an organisation.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
Two items on Fair Go investigated claims about a wooden gate manufacturer. Customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director, and the item contained footage, filmed from a public footpath, of the company director at his workshop. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: no private facts were disclosed about the director, and footage taken on his property was not broadcast; the impression created about him and his company was based on the opinions of customers, which were exempt from standards of accuracy; the director was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and the item included comprehensive summaries of his statement; and the broadcast was accurate in all material respects and would not have misled viewers on the essential issues.
Not Upheld: Good taste and Decency, Law and Order, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Checkpoint reported that an Anglican Minister had been suspended for removing children from a youth camp to protect them from a man he believed was a sexual predator. The Authority upheld the complaint that the church and the Bishop had been treated unfairly: the broadcaster did not have a sufficient foundation for broadcasting such serious allegations and did not provide any corroborating evidence, and though the church was provided with a fair opportunity to comment, the item failed to adequately present their response. The Authority did not agree that the item breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards: it did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance and the Authority was not in a position to determine whether the impression of the alleged offending was misleading. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy
No Order