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
Three news items on One News Tonight and 3 News that covered the debate around legalising “gay marriage” used the word “gay” numerous times to mean “homosexual”. The Authority declined to determine complaints that the items breached the accuracy standard: the Authority has previously declined to determine an identical complaint from this complainant on the ground that it was frivolous and trivial.
Declined to Determine: Accuracy
An episode of Media 7, a weekly commentary and review show on TVNZ7, included an interview with an investigative journalist and foreign correspondent in Afghanistan. He made comments that were critical of a reporter and her account of the Kandahar massacre which had recently been broadcast on Australian current affairs show Dateline. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached the fairness and accuracy standards: the ability to robustly review media is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy; the criticisms overall were aimed at the reporter in her professional, as opposed to her personal, capacity; the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his response was fairly summarised; and the use of Dateline extracts was not unfair. The journalist’s comments were clearly distinguishable as his personal and professional opinion and therefore exempt from standards of accuracy.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
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 Her dog training methods were alleged to be outdated and harmful.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
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
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
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
During the Willie and JT Show on Radio Live the hosts discussed the recent sentencing of the ‘Urewera Four’, comparing their treatment to that of the complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges. The complainant phoned in to the programme and explained the background to his case but after the phone call had finished the hosts called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter”. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the fairness standard: the hosts’ comments amounted to personal abuse and the complainant was unable to defend himself as the phone call had ended. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments breached the controversial issues standard: though the broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance, the item did not amount to a “discussion” of that issue but presented the hosts’ opinions; and the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts, and given reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints, by allowing the complainant on air.
The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
No Order
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
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