During a segment called “Ideas” on Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National, the host interviewed a professor about his creative writing course and about writers and the writing community in general; the professor made comments about a “generation” of New Zealand poets, including A.R.D Fairburn and Denis Glover. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards: the comments did not form part of a “factual programme”, so the controversial issues standard did not apply; this episode of “Ideas” was not “factual programming” to which the accuracy standard applied, and in any event the professor’s comments amounted to his personal opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy; and the fairness standard only applies to individuals and organisations – it does not apply to people who are deceased, or to a “generation of poets”.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
All Decisions
An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One, profiled the complainant and introduced him by referring to some of his previous complaints, including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy and fairness standards: the item did not suggest that all or most of Mr McDonald’s complaints were unfounded but that he complained “too often about too little”; it provided a context to the complaints, and the complainant was able to put forward his own perspective. Accuracy was subsumed into the Authority’s discussion of fairness.
Not Upheld: Fairness
Subsumed: Accuracy (into Fairness)
The ZM Morning Crew hosts ran a competition called “Racial Profiling”, in which the hosts and a contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards: on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes but the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping, and freedom of expression outweighed the potential harm caused; and the broadcast did not encourage denigration or discrimination, but was an attempt at humour and satire which are recognised as important freedoms of speech.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration
During Michael Laws Talkback, broadcast on Radio Live, the host interviewed the complainant, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association. The host accused her of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements; he made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle”. The Authority held that this was a serious breach of the fairness standard and the action taken by the broadcaster, in upholding only part of the fairness complaint, was insufficient. The Authority did not uphold the accuracy complaint since the host did not make unqualified statements of fact.
The Authority ordered the broadcast of a statement, including an apology to the complainant.
Upheld: Fairness and Action Taken
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
Order: Broadcast of statement, including apology to complainant
An episode of Last Chance Dogs, a reality television series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners, was broadcast on TV2. It followed three dogs which were taken from their owner by animal control officers because they were not registered and had been aggressive towards other dogs. At the end of the episode a teaser was shown for the next episode, in which the programme’s resident dog trainer was attempting to train one of the three dogs and the dog was shown attacking two dogs in a park. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards: the programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity and the focus was on dogs being removed from their owner because they were not registered; the programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance; and the responsible programming standard was not applicable.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming
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
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 book reading of Eggs, written by New Zealand author Maxine Alterio, was broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Good Friday morning at 6.50am. The story was told from the perspective of an “at risk youth” who attended a Polytechnic course where she and her classmates looked after eggs in order to learn parenting skills. The story contained mature themes including references to drug taking and sex, as well as some coarse language. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the book reading breached the good taste and decency standard: it was an artistic work and the language and themes were acceptable in the context, and upholding the complaints would unjustifiably limit free speech.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency