Search

The Authority has not upheld a complaint from the New Zealand Forest Owners Association regarding a two-part investigation into the impact of carbon farming and the Emissions Trading Scheme on rural communities, particularly around the East Coast. The items examined the shift from sheep, beef and dairy farming to forestry, particularly carbon farming, and interviewed locals as to their perspectives on the impact of this. The Authority found the period of interest relating to the issue discussed in the items was ongoing, and that balance was achieved with significant viewpoints presented in other coverage as well as within the pieces. The Authority also found they were not inaccurate as the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of material points of fact. Other inaccuracies raised were not material, or were technical, unimportant points unlikely to mislead viewers. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold an accuracy complaint about a Newshub item describing a new solar paint product as potentially ‘160 times less’ expensive than solar panels. The statement was a technical point unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of The Project in which Jesse Mulligan presented his view on whether New Zealand should ‘be more like Sweden’ in responding to COVID-19. Mr Mulligan stated ‘[Sweden's] number of COVID cases is actually going up, the virus is not under control and although their deaths are down, they're seeing more infections every day’. Mr Mulligan’s statement was not materially inaccurate and was unlikely to mislead viewers in the context, including given the wealth of other coverage and commentary available. The potential harm did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment by Mark Richardson on The Project regarding the Green Party and its responsibility for the protection of native trees. The statement was an opinion not subject to the accuracy standard, and was not unfair to the Green Party. The programme information standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Programme Information...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a promo for Taranaki Hard. The Authority found the item was within audience expectations for a promo shown during an unclassified news programme. It did not actively promote or glamorise illegal behaviour nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence or cause harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘pissed off’ in the opening to a news item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The phrase was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or cause specific harm to a child audience. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Newshub which stated, ‘The White House has reportedly asked about adding President Trump's face to the famous granite carvings at the Mount Rushmore National Memorial’. The complainant submitted the news was fake and Mr Trump had already confirmed this before the broadcast. The Authority noted the statement was qualified by the word ‘reportedly’, and was accurate to the extent such reports had been made. While the segment carried little value in terms of public interest, the Authority found viewers were unlikely to have been misled. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on Newshub Live at 6pm breached the balance standard. The broadcast commented on Chris Hipkins’s first day as Prime Minister, and noted after only a few hours into the role, he did not have any ‘tangible’ policy to announce. The complainant alleged the broadcasting was biased, and unbalanced. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not discuss an issue of public importance, the complainant did not specify which balancing perspectives they considered were not presented, and in any event, relevant perspectives had been presented in the broadcast.   Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint alleging an item on AM breached the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interest standards. The broadcast included the phrase ‘get the bloody hell out of here’. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.   Declined to determine: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the question ‘How can anyone trust anything that you say? ’ put to Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health, following the positive tests of two women who were released from managed isolation on compassionate grounds. Dr Bloomfield’s answers to the question (which was posed twice) were shown on-air. Viewers would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him. As a public health official he is reasonably subject to robust scrutiny, especially during a pandemic. The fairness standard was accordingly not breached and the remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has upheld a complaint about the classification and scheduling of an episode of SAS Australia which was classified ‘M’ and screened at 7. 30pm. The episode featured aggression, potentially distressing psychological elements and frequent coarse language (more than 35 instances or variations of ‘fuck’). The Authority found this content warranted a higher classification of ‘16’ rather than ‘M’, a stronger warning for frequent language and a later time of broadcast outside of children’s normally accepted viewing times (after 8. 30pm). It therefore upheld the complaint under the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards, as viewers were not given sufficient reliable information to make an informed viewing choice or exercise discretion. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests Not Upheld: Violence No order...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Today. The complaint was that an interviewee was treated unfairly, and the segment discriminated against and denigrated the elderly. Noting that comments concerning the interviewee were based on his individual actions and views (rather than his status as ‘elderly’) and that the discrimination and denigration standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of genuine expressions of comment, legitimate humour or satire, the Authority found no breach of that standard. In the context, the Authority also found the interviewee was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment referring to a sex act during an episode of New Zealand Today, which the host and interviewee both laughed at. The programme was classified 16-LSC, preceded by a full-screen warning and screened at 9pm. Given audience expectations for the programme, the classification, the warning and the scheduling, the Authority found the comment would not cause widespread undue offence and audiences were able to make their own viewing choices. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. It noted the complainant had not identified any inaccuracies or particular issues of public importance requiring balance. It also found the two interviewees were treated fairly and the interviews represented what it expects of the media in performing its role of scrutinising and holding to account those in power. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

A promo of Killer Couples was aired during the programme Drop Dead Fred at 7. 49pm. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the promo breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority found the promo was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and did not go beyond what was expected in a PG classification. It also found the promo did not include any violent content as envisaged by the violence standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about a promo of The Project as the complainant is responsible for identifying the programme the subject of his complaint1 and his complaint did not appear to relate to the identified broadcast content. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about coverage on The AM Show of proposed changes to safe zones around abortion clinics. The statements alleged to be inaccurate were comment, opinion or analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The balance standard did not apply as the separate news bulletins did not amount to a discussion; and in any event, differing perspectives from Abortion Rights Aotearoa and Voice for Life NZ were included. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the promo for Hustlers which was broadcast during the movie Minions. The promo did not breach the good taste and decency or children’s interests standards as it was consistent with the PG classification for Minions. Child viewers were unlikely to understand the adult themes, and the promo did not contain nudity or explicit sexual content. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a broadcast including an interview with a lawyer who was represented as a ‘political commentator’. The complainant made several unsubstantiated allegations to the effect the lawyer was corrupt, and the broadcaster should have disclosed their alleged corruption. The Authority considered the complaint should not be determined in the circumstances as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preference on who should be interviewed, and how they should be portrayed, which are matters of editorial discretion not capable of being resolved by the broadcasting standards complaints process. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Law and Order, Balance...