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
All Decisions
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
A One News item allegedly contained comments that were inconsistent with a BBC report that quoted the United States Attorney General as saying New Zealand had opened its ports to US war ships. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the comments breached the accuracy standard: the broadcaster was unable to identify a relevant broadcast which corresponded directly with the time and date specified in the referral, and in any case the complainant's concerns were matters of personal preference and editorial discretion.
Declined to Determine: Accuracy
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
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
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
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
An episode of Target featured hidden camera footage of employees from three different electrical companies working in the Target house. The companies were each given a score out of ten for their employees’ performance. The Authority upheld the complaint that the programme breached the privacy standard: the complainant was identifiable, he had an interest in seclusion in the Target house, the broadcast of the hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying, the complainant did not give his informed consent to the broadcast, and there was insufficient public interest in the footage to justify the breach of privacy. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Privacy
No Order
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
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