A 3 News bulletin reported on the granting of parole to a man jailed in relation to the so-called “Urewera anti-terror raids”. The newsreader said men were “jailed over military-style training camps” and the item showed a photograph of Tame Iti wearing a balaclava-type headpiece and holding a gun. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the report breached the accuracy, controversial issues and fairness standards: while the newsreader’s statement was technically inaccurate, the position was immediately clarified when the newsreader said the men were sentenced for firearms offences; and the photograph of Tame Iti was relevant to the subject matter. The newsreader’s introductory comment and the photograph did not create an unfair impression that the men were terrorists; and the item did not contain a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance requiring the presentation of alternative viewpoints.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
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
Five items reporting on an episode of escalating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Gaza Strip were broadcast on Radio New Zealand National. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that they breached the balance standard because they were biased towards the Palestinian position. The broadcaster had clearly made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints, including the Israeli perspective, across more than 250 news bulletins and programmes within the period of current interest.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
An episode of Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated showed two cartoon characters kissing and making romantic comments. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests: the kissing scenes, including dialogue, were innocuous and inexplicit, the content was consistent with the programme’s G classification, and the scenes would not have offended most viewers or disturbed or alarmed children.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests
Fair Go carried out testing on imported and locally produced “extra virgin” olive oil, and reported that European imports had failed sensory and chemical tests. The story made references to the testing being “IOC accredited” (International Olive Oil Council). The Authority upheld the accuracy complaint as these references were not technically correct and gave greater status to the testing than was justified. Nevertheless, the complainant was given a reasonable opportunity to respond, and its response was adequately presented so the programme overall was not unfair. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Accuracy
No Order
A music video for the Lana Del Ray song "Born to Die" was broadcast on C4. It contained the lyrics "Let's go get high" and briefly showed the artist smoking what the complainant alleged was a marijuana cigarette. The Authority determined that this did not breach the law and order standard: the lyrics and footage did not glamorise drug use and did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity.
Not Upheld: Law and Order
A promo for The Graham Norton Show’s Christmas special showed a photograph of a couple dressed as Mary and Joseph holding a dog in swaddling clothes. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards: the content was a light-hearted attempt at humour as opposed to a criticism of Christians and would not have offended most viewers in context. Further, the innocent lampooning of religious figures comes within the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration
An AO comedy programme, A Night at the Classic, contained extensive coarse language and sexual references. Given the late time of broadcast (10pm), the specific pre-broadcast warning and the AO classification, the Authority concluded that the programme did not breach standards of good taste and decency and responsible programming.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
The ZM Morning Crew hosts ran a competition called “Racial Profiling”, in which the hosts and a contestant were asked to guess whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian”. The Authority did not uphold good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, or responsible programming complaints: the segment was an attempt at humour and satire and the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in racial stereotyping; the broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context and was not socially irresponsible; and although some of the content was challenging it did not reach the high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Sunday profiled a young man who was a recidivist car thief. It showed brief footage of a car he had stolen, including its number plate. The Authority did not uphold GW’s privacy complaint. The complainant and her husband were not identifiable through the footage of their car and number plate, and no private facts were disclosed about them that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.
Not Upheld: Privacy