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
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
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