An item on Seven Sharp reporting on violence against women contained instrumental excerpts from the song "Smack My Bitch Up" playing in the background. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard: only viewers who knew the song would have recognised it from the instrumental excerpts; and the use of these excerpts did not undermine the important message of the segment but drew attention to, and raised awareness of, the issue.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
An item on Breakfast, entitled “Daycare vs Homecare”, included an interview with the President of the Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education as opposed to daycare. It contained comments by the President that reflected negatively on daycare. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item was unbalanced: it discussed a controversial issue of public importance and the interview was framed as a debate about the merits of daycare versus homecare, but the item itself had the flavour of an advertorial, and taking into account the likely audience, insufficient balance was provided and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints.
The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Controversial Issues
No Order
In two interviews the host of Cruise FM made comments that were critical of, and threatening towards, local council members and a rival radio station. The Authority upheld the complaint that the comments were unfair. The comments were personally abusive and had the potential to be very damaging, and the host abused his position by using the airwaves to discredit council members and staff at a rival radio station. The Authority ordered the radio station to broadcast a statement and also to pay costs to the Crown of $2,500.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
Orders: Broadcast of statement, $2,500 costs to Crown
An episode of Shortland Street on TV2 showed characters smoking cigarettes and dropping their cigarette butts on the ground. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency, and law and order standards: the footage was acceptable in context and relevant to the developing storyline. It was well within the broadcaster’s right to employ dramatic licence.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order
During Afternoons with Jim Mora on Radio New Zealand National, the host and panellists discussed a coroner’s recommendation, with one panellist criticising the recommendation and stating, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration: the panellist’s comment was flippant and not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts; and it was aimed at the coroner in his professional capacity, rather than being personally abusive.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
In a One News item broadcast on Waitangi Day, the presenter referred to the Treaty of Waitangi as “the nation’s founding document”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate: the reporter’s description was not a material point of fact to which the standard applied and the description would not have misled viewers in the context of the item.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
During D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive on Radio Sport, the host and producer referred to rugby players as “Jesus” and “God”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: the use of these terms to compliment rugby players would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context, and the comments did not carry any invective or encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Sunday profiled a New Zealand businessman and his experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: the item focused on the experience of one man and did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance; the information the complainant was concerned about was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events; no individual or organisation was treated unfairly; and the story did not encourage the denigration of China or Chinese people.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
During Michael Laws Talkback the host expressed the view that medical personnel were deliberately
overmedicating patients with dementia, causing them to die. He used the term “zombie” when referring to a person with dementia. The complainant called the station to challenge the host’s comments but was cut off. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration: broadcasters have the right to screen calls, as a matter of editorial discretion; the host did not make any derogatory or abusive comments but simply chose not to engage with the complainant; and the use of the term “zombie” was not vitriolic or an attack against people with dementia – the host was expressing his opinion and comments were typical of his style.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
A 3 News item reported on the findings of an investigation into the actions of New Zealand’s intelligence agency, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and the Government’s proposed response to those findings. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that two statements about the governing legislation were inaccurate: the item focused on the key finding that the legislation was ambiguous, and the statements were not inaccurate or misleading when taken in this context.
Not Upheld: Accuracy