The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a Newshub segment that discussed the potential rise of far-right ideology in New Zealand breached the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found that the segment was balanced as it contained multiple points of view. The Authority also found that the presenter’s reference to the complainant as a ‘white supremacist’ was a statement of analysis and opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply.
Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy
A complaint that an episode of The AM Show breached the balance standard was not upheld. The episode featured multiple segments that addressed various climate change related issues including interviews with a Fonterra representative about its sustainable farming practices, an interview with sailors Peter Burling and Blair Tuke about their marine conservation initiative ‘Live Ocean’ and a panel discussion about the recently founded Sustainable New Zealand Party. The Authority found that while climate change issues are controversial issues of public importance, none of the segments amounted to unbalanced discussions for the purposes of the standard.
Not Upheld: Balance
In a 1 News report on the ruling of the UK Supreme Court that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, a statement was made in the introduction of the item that Boris Johnson had ‘lied to the Queen’. TVNZ upheld the complaint that the statement was inaccurate, apologised to the complainant and held discussions with the news team to ensure that systems were put in place to reduce the risk of inaccurate reporting. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the action taken by TVNZ was insufficient, finding that the action was appropriate and proportionate to the breach identified.
Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken)
The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a 1 News segment breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The Authority found that people who hold the views represented in the segment do not amount to a ‘recognised section of the community’ for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also found that, while the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, it was balanced by the inclusion of multiple points of view from several parties.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance
A 1 News item reported on the confessions of a man identified as America’s most prolific serial killer, Samuel Little. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the inclusion of a statement by the man breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority determined that the content was justified by context and in the public interest. The Authority acknowledged the high value in news and current affairs reporting and noted that the introduction to the item (which included reference to a ‘chilling’ police interview) was adequate to inform viewers of the nature of the coverage enabling them to adequately protect themselves and their children from the content by choosing not to watch. However, the Authority noted that where broadcasters provide audience advisories about potentially challenging content through a programme host’s introduction, it is important that the introduction is factual and captures the nature of the content to come.
Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests and Violence
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a remark about suicide made by Mr Burns at the end of The Simpsons Movie was in breach of the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority acknowledged that the remark pushed the boundaries of the G (General) classification and recognised the need for broadcasters to take particular care when addressing subjects such as suicide. However, noting the nature of, and audience expectations for, The Simpsons as well as the nature and position (within the credits) of the remark, the Authority concluded that the programme was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or to be unduly harmful or disturbing to children. The Authority also noted that there were no scenes of violence depicted.
Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests and Violence
The Authority did not uphold two complaints that comments made by Mike Hosking during his Mike’s Minute segment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. Discussing two recent immigration policy decisions by the Government, Mr Hosking commented, ‘discrimination is no bad thing’ and, ‘Where do too many of the radicalised nutters come from? That particular part of the planet [Africa and the Middle East]... We don’t want to take the risk of a poor-ish person’s parent arriving – so why a jihadist?’ The Authority acknowledged the complainants’ concerns that Mr Hosking’s choice of language was inflammatory. However, it found that in the context of the item, which carried public interest, the comments complained about were brief and moderated by the remainder of the item. Mr Hosking was expressing his genuinely held opinion on a legitimate issue, rather than being malicious or nasty. Therefore the comments did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration, and did not warrant limiting the right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found Mr Hosking’s comments were distinguishable as analysis, comment and opinion so the accuracy standard did not apply.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy
The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a promo for Love Island Australia, which was available to view online on ThreeNow. The promo depicted the programme host, Sophie Monk and two others as angels sitting in the clouds. The ‘god of love’, a heart-shaped cloud in the sky, called down to Sophie saying, ‘we need more love’. Sophie responded that she had ‘the perfect place for falling in love… a love island’, in response to which the ‘god of love’ asked, ‘and what about hot bods?’ The complainant found the promo offensive as he considered it mocked Christianity and Christian beliefs. Weighing these concerns against the right to freedom of expression, the Authority found the promo’s content would not have unduly offended or distressed the general audience, and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. Therefore, the promo did not cause actual or potential harm at a level which justified limiting the right to freedom of expression.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration
The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘synthetic cannabis’ in a 1 News segment that reported on these products and their likely link to a number of deaths breached the accuracy or programme information standards. The Authority cited a recent decision where it found that while these products do not contain actual cannabis, the term ‘synthetic cannabis’ is commonly used to describe them and is unlikely to mislead viewers. Therefore, the Authority did not consider it likely viewers would be significantly misinformed by its use in this broadcast. The Authority also did not identify any breaches of the programme information standard.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Programme Information
The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘douche’ following an interview with Hannah Tamaki breached the good taste and decency standard. The complaint was that Mrs Tamaki was referred to as a ‘douche’, which was not an acceptable way to refer to a woman. The Authority noted that the word was used on two occasions. The first use of the word originated from audience feedback saying Mrs Tamaki was ‘on the same page as [Donald Trump]; and that ‘Trump’s a douche’. The host’s later comment promoting an upcoming item – ‘from douches to [chef] Nadia Lim’ – was ambiguous as to whether or not it was intended to refer to Mrs Tamaki. In any event, the Authority did not consider the use of the word threatened community standards of good taste and decency in the context.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency