Sean Plunket Morning. Host interviewed Dr Paul Connett about his views against fluoridation of water. Not upheld (controversial issues, fairness, and discrimination and denigration).
Hauraki Amped. Promotion for film The Hangover Part II stated “Hauraki’s going to send you and two mates to get your own hangover in Thailand”. Not upheld (liquor and responsible programming).
Closer. Movie contained potentially offensive language. Not upheld (responsible programming and discrimination and denigration).
3 News. News reader stated “What is wrong with these people, I ask”, with reference to people declining invitations to Royal wedding. Declined to determine (discrimination and denigration).
7 Days. Comedy programme contained racial comments, coarse language and sexual connotations. Not upheld (good taste and decency, and responsible programming).
Campbell Live and promos. Inaccurately reported that striking workers from recycling company Paper Reclaim worked in “dirty, unsanitary conditions” and that there was a rat problem at Paper Reclaim’s plant. Upheld (accuracy and fairness). Not upheld (privacy). Orders (broadcast statement, $13,742.20 costs to complainant, $3,000 costs to Crown).
Fair Go. Investigated sales techniques employed by Wenatex and showed sales consultant stating colleague was “in front of a wheelchair” before purchasing a Wenatex bed. Upheld (fairness). Not upheld (privacy). Declined to determine (accuracy). Orders ($8,740 costs to complainants).
Criminal Minds. Storyline involved Alzheimer’s sufferer who was capturing, torturing and killing young women. Upheld (responsible programming, violence and good taste and decency). Not upheld (children’s interests). No order.
The storyline of an episode of Criminal Minds broadcast at 8.30pm involved a man with extensive burn injuries seeking revenge by burning his victims alive. The scenes showed the victims being splashed with petrol and set on fire. The Authority upheld the complaint that the episode breached standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming, and violence: the level of violence in an 8.30pm broadcast was unacceptable, despite the episode’s AO classification; the violence was explicit; and the programme was incorrectly classified, as the high degree of explicit violence and disturbing adult themes warranted an AO 9.30pm classification and later time of broadcast. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Violence
No Order
7 Days. Allegedly offensive language. Not upheld (good taste and decency).