An item on One News broadcast at 6pm included footage of a rugby player mouthing an obscenity. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the statement breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards: the language was inaudible, which reduced its potential to offend; it would have bypassed most children as they would have to have been actively watching to understand what was said; and the news is not targeted at, or likely to appeal to, children.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests
A promo for Two and a Half Men screened at 2.10pm during Anderson, a chat show rated G (General), as part of a montage of promos for ‘Comedy Wednesday’; it contained sexual innuendo and the word “penis”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the promo breached standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests: the promo screened during a chat show targeted at adults and in an AO timeslot; the promo was light-hearted and intended to be humorous; the sexual content was sufficiently inexplicit, and the broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
A Close Up report profiled Māori activists and their views on the Government’s sale of state assets and proposed mining activities. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, and discrimination and denigration: the views expressed by the activist represented one end of a political spectrum – they were described as radical and the audience would have understood that they were not representative of all Māori or young Māori; the item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community; the interview focused on the activist and his brother and their political views; the reporter took a “devil’s advocate” approach, and the programme included viewer feedback.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration
During Michael Laws Talkback, broadcast two days running on Radio Live, the host discussed the results of a study conducted by Women’s Refuge and the SPCA which showed a link between domestic violence and animal abuse. The host made a number of comments critical of the women who took part in the study and of women who stayed in violent relationships because of their pets. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments breached standards relating to good taste and decency, accuracy, and discrimination and denigration: talkback is a robust and opinionated environment; the comments amounted to the host’s personal opinion and the two programmes were balanced overall; the comments were limited to women who took part in the study and to those who stayed in violent relationships because of their pets, and the comments did not reach the necessary threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration against any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
During a discussion about gay marriage on Newstalk ZB’s Overnight Talkback, the host described the complainant, a caller, as “incredibly rude”. The host read out a fax from the complainant and repeated the word “homophobic” while spelling out “faggot”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments breached the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards: while it was clear that the host disagreed with the complainant’s views, he did allow the complainant an opportunity to present his perspective and he was not abusive towards him; and the host’s use of the word “homophobic” and spelling out of “faggot” did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
Promos for The Almighty Johnsons, Sons of Anarchy and Terra Nova were broadcast during Dr Phil at approximately 1.30pm. The promos briefly showed images of weapons, including a knife and guns. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these promos breached standards relating to good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence: the promos did not contain any AO material, they were appropriately classified PGR and screened during Dr Phil which was classified AO, and the broadcaster had exercised sufficient care and discretion in dealing with the issue of violence.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence
Prime News used a pre-recorded BBC item reporting on controversial comments by Top Gear television presenter Jeremy Clarkson that striking workers should be shot. A complaint that this breached standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming was not upheld: the focus of the item was the comment made by Mr Clarkson which caused controversy – therefore it was not misleading to omit footage of other comments; the item was a brief snapshot of the response to Mr Clarkson’s comments and did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue that was of public importance in New Zealand; there is a higher threshold for finding unfairness to a public figure; and viewers were not disadvantaged or deceived by the clip of Mr Clarkson’s comments.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming
Ip Man, a well-regarded movie about a martial arts legend, based on historical events, was broadcast in various timeslots during children’s viewing times. The broadcaster accepted that the movie was incorrectly classified ‘M’ when it should have been AO, and that it should have been broadcast in the AO time-band, not during children’s viewing times, but it nevertheless declined to uphold the complaint. The Authority upheld the complaint that the inappropriate classification and timeslots meant that the broadcast breached standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and violence. The Authority did not, however, uphold the complaint that it breached the good taste and decency, controversial issues, and discrimination and denigration standards: viewers would not have been surprised or offended by the content in the context of a martial arts movie; the movie was not a news, current affairs or factual programme so the controversial issues standard did not apply; the discrimination and denigration standard was not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama, and the movie did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests, Violence
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration
No Order
Campbell Live reported on a woman who, after she miscarried, unsuccessfully sought a refund for baby items purchased from the complainant’s business. The reporter door-stepped the complainant and her co-owner, and footage of this was broadcast. The Authority upheld that the broadcast breached the fairness, accuracy and privacy standards. No previous attempts had been made to obtain comment before door-stepping the shop owners; covert filming and recording of the conversation meant that the owners were not properly informed of the nature of their participation; the owners specifically stated that they did not want to be filmed or recorded; and the tone of programme was negative towards the owners and their position was not adequately presented. The owners were identifiable, and the item disclosed private facts. The Authority ordered payment of $500 to the complainant for breach of privacy and payment of $750 legal costs to the complainant.
Upheld: Privacy, Fairness, Accuracy
Order: $500 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy, $750 legal costs to complainant
In a 3 News report on the trials of the ‘Urewera Four’, the reporter referred to the original Urewera terror raids of 2007 and repeated the incorrect information that “17 people were arrested and initially charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act”. The broadcaster upheld the complaint that this statement was inaccurate because no one had been charged under that Act. It acknowledged that Mr Signer had previously alerted it to this error, and while it had removed the erroneous material from its website some of the material had been overlooked which “caused a repeat of the incorrect statement”. The broadcaster apologised and said it had sent a “strongly worded email” to all 3 News centres around the country. The Authority upheld the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient because the broadcaster should have broadcast a correction at the earliest appropriate opportunity. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken)
No Order