In an investigation spanning two separate broadcasts, Fair Go dealt with a complaint against The Battery Clinic and its manager, the complainant, relating to a system developed to extend the life of batteries in hybrid vehicles. Three experts expressed concerns about the safety of the system. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards: Fair Go had a sufficient basis for presenting the view that the system developed by the complainant was potentially dangerous, and the complainant was provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the claims and defend his invention; and there is a very high public interest in reporting on matters that have the potential to impact on public safety.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
A promo for TV One's Friday Night of Comedy contained footage from episodes that had already screened. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the responsible programming and accuracy standards: a comedy promo is not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies; and the promo was generic and promoted the programme series, as opposed to specific upcoming episodes.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible Programming
A One News item reported on funding cuts to the telephone support service for victims of rape and sexual assault. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the controversial issues and discrimination and denigration standards because it allegedly portrayed only women as victims and not men: the focus was on funding cuts to the service not the gender of perpetrators and victims of sexual violence, so was not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue; and it did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration
An item on Close Up on TV One reported on the controversy around the establishment of an abortion clinic in Invercargill, and the strong opposition from 'pro-life' group Southlanders For Life. The item included interviews with a 'pro-life' representative and a 'pro-choice' representative. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration. The item did not suggest that all 'pro-life' groups were violent; the perspective of Southlanders For Life, including its position on violence, was reflected fairly and its representative treated impartially. The reporter's general statement about violence committed by a 'pro-life' group in America was accurate, and the item was not required to define abortion or to include images of aborted babies. The item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
An item on Close Up reported on vandalism at Horowhenua Rowing Club and included cell phone footage of the complainant verbally abusing a kayaker. The complainant was interviewed about his views on public access to Lake Horowhenua and about his behaviour in the footage. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the fairness and accuracy standards: while it was suggested that the complainant might have been responsible for the vandalism, the complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut that suggestion, and the reporter made it clear that no one had been charged with the vandalism; the complainant explained his behaviour; the reference to an assault conviction was correct at the time of broadcast and the item was accurate on all points of fact; and the focus of the item was vandalism at the rowing club in the context of a wider dispute over public access. The complainant was provided with sufficient opportunity to comment on the issues and to provide balance.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
An item on Fair Go focused on a couple who received a verbal estimate for plumbing work that was significantly less than the final bill, and included interviews with the couple and the plumber. It advised viewers on how to avoid unanticipated costs by obtaining written quotes. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the fairness standard: the plumber was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his viewpoint was adequately reflected; the item did not create an unfairly negative representation of his character or conduct; and there is a high level of public interest in advice provided to tradespeople and consumers.
Not Upheld: Fairness
An item on Close Up on TV One reported on a man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes. The presenter jokingly asked the man if he wanted a cigarette. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the presenter's comments breached standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming: the man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour, and the comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming
During a segment on Breakfast, a programme broadcast from 6am to 9am, a presenter referred to a Tip Top ice cream competition and advised viewers how to enter the competition. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the segment was covertly advertising Tip Top, in breach of the responsible programming and children’s interests standards: promotions of this nature are now commonplace and the promotion of Tip Top was overt so viewers would not have been deceived or disadvantaged; the complainant’s concern about obesity and diabetes among children is not an issue of broadcasting standards but rather a wider policy issue; and the broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching.
Not Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
An item on Spectrum on Radio New Zealand National reported on The Nelson Ark APART programme, an eight-week dog training course designed to teach young people discipline, compassion and tolerance through empathy. A young female graduate was asked about her background and how she came to be on the programme. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item had breached her privacy: the woman was not identifiable; she did not say she was raped, as the complainant alleged; and no private facts were disclosed in a manner that would be considered highly offensive, as the woman was a willing participant.
Not Upheld: Privacy
A segment on 3 News: Firstline included an interview with a spokesperson from the Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding a proposed amendment to the Parole Act 2002. The spokesperson expressed her view that the amendment “did not go far enough” and that parole hearings should be abolished altogether. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the controversial issues standard: the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance, and while the presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – the broadcaster accepted that it had not made reasonable efforts, or given reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints. The Authority did not find a breach of the accuracy and fairness standards: the statements amounted to comment and opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy, the item was not misleading, and parole board members, prisoners, and victims of crime were all treated fairly. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Controversial Issues
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
No Order