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
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
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
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
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
A One News item reported on the verdict of not guilty in the Ewen McDonald murder trial. At the end of the item the reporter commented, “You could well be thinking, if he’s not guilty, why hasn’t he walked out these doors behind me and spoken to media? The reason for that of course is that he’s admitted causing vandalism, graffiti and arson…” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the law and order, and fairness standards: the item was a legitimate news story with a high level of public interest, and as the accused in a high-profile murder case Mr McDonald could expect to be the subject of media scrutiny; and the reporter’s question did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Fairness
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