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
The question for the Authority was whether a complaint had been submitted within the time allowed. The complainant submitted two formal complaints about two broadcasts on Fair Go, using the broadcaster’s online complaint form. The broadcaster declined to accept the second complaint on the basis that it was out of time. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989 formal complaints must be lodged in writing with the broadcaster within 20 working days after the programme has screened. The complainant submitted his online complaint shortly before midnight on 28 June, the 20th working day after the broadcast. The definition of “working day” in section 2 of the Act specifies days of the year that are to be excluded but not times of day. The Authority held that the ordinary meaning of a “day” runs from midnight to midnight and that the complaint should have been accepted by the broadcaster. The Authority made an order directing the complaint back to the broadcaster to be accepted and considered as a formal complaint.
Order: Broadcaster to accept and consider complaint as a formal complaint
In an interview on Radio New Zealand National’s Checkpoint the Executive Director of the Rape Prevention Education Group stated, “I think our focus has to be on the safety of our children, and we know that approximately one in four girls and one in eight boys are likely to experience some form of sexual violence before the age of 16”. RNZ News later reported, “The group’s executive director, Kim McGregor, claims . . .” and repeated the figures. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the statement breached the accuracy standard: the Director’s comment was not a statement of fact but reflected her views and experiences, and was presented from an advocacy perspective, the figures were approximates and, while contentious, were supported by some independent research.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
During the ZM drive show Jay, Flynny and Jacqui, one of the hosts told a personal anecdote about a prank she committed in her youth, namely setting off a fire alarm, “resulting in all of Timaru’s fire engines turning up”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments breached the law and order standard: the anecdote was a light-hearted recollection of the host’s actions in her youth intended to entertain, but with an educational message – the host made comments condemning her own behaviour and noting the repercussions – and the story did not invite imitation or otherwise encourage listeners to break the law.
Not Upheld: Law and Order
At approximately 9.11pm during Kerre Woodham Talkback, the host said, “You fricken moron”, in response to a caller’s comment that having a disability was the result of “inbreeding”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comment breached the good taste and decency and responsible programming standards: the comment was broadcast after 9pm during a talkback programme targeted at adults, it would not have surprised or offended most listeners, and its broadcast in this context was not socially irresponsible.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
An item on One News reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The item contained footage of an SPCA raid at the complainant’s property and archive photographs of cats and dogs there. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy, fairness and privacy standards: the reporter’s summary of the court judgment captured the essence of a complex decision; the archive photographs and footage were used as visual wallpaper and would not have misled viewers; the complainant was provided with an adequate opportunity to comment; and though he was identifiable the photographs were legitimately obtained by SPCA, and the use of archive footage was justified, given the ongoing focus on the complainant’s breeding activities.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness
An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm, reported on a “strip club turf war” in Wellington and contained footage of a stripper wearing only a G-string and dancing erotically. The broadcaster upheld the initial complaint that this breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards, apologising to the complainant and counselling its editorial staff to prevent a similar breach. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient.
Not Upheld (Action Taken): Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests
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
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