A news item on Radio New Zealand National about the French and Greek elections reported that “the polls have opened in Greece for parliamentary elections seen as a referendum on the country’s harsh austerity measures”. The Authority first determined that it had jurisdiction to accept the complaint. It did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards: the use of the word “harsh” did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints; the word was not a material point of fact and would not have misled viewers; “harsh” was intended to mean strict or stringent and was not pejorative in this context; upholding the accuracy complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression; and the fairness standard only applies to individuals.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness
A re-broadcast of an episode of the reality TV series The Inspectors showed an Environmental Health Officer carrying out a routine spot check at a Dunedin fish and chip shop and making critical comments about the state of the premises, downgrading it from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’. The inspection took place in 2009 and the programme was first broadcast on TV One in 2010. The complaint was about the latest broadcast in January 2012. The Authority upheld the complaint that this broadcast breached the privacy and fairness standards: the shop owner was identifiable even though his face was pixellated; any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming; there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later; and it was fundamentally unfair to broadcast footage three years after filming – the disclaimer at the start of the programme was not sufficient to mitigate the unfairness in this respect.
The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the accuracy standard as it did not contain any material inaccuracies. The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Privacy, Fairness
Not Upheld: Accuracy
No Order
Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) was a Sunday Theatre docudrama based on historical facts about women in New Zealand being given the right to vote in 1893. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that it was inaccurate to claim that New Zealand women were the first to be given the vote: the programme was a docudrama legitimately employing dramatic licence to portray historical events, not a news, current affairs, or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
In a segment on Police Ten 7 profiling an aggravated robbery of a bar, a wanted offender was described as “possibly Māori but pale skinned” and “possibly Māori, [with a] light complexion”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard since it did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Māori as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration
A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and contained the graphic of a sign: “For Sale, NZ SOEs”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the accuracy standard: the graphic was not a “material point of fact”, and given the extensive coverage of the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
During Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand National, the host interviewed the chair of the Productivity Commission about the Commission’s recent report to Government on housing affordability. The introduction by the interviewer included the comment, “with section prices actually falling in some of the city’s outlying areas”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this comment was inaccurate: the host’s brief comment in the introduction was not a material point of fact in the context of the interview and would not have materially altered listeners’ understanding of the issues discussed.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
Episodes of Last Chance Dogs, a reality television series on TV2 about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners, featured a resident dog trainer who worked with badly behaved dogs. Her dog training methods were alleged to be outdated and harmful. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programmes breached standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence: they did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases; the programme commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as opinion rather than fact; the episodes were appropriately classified PGR and contained a clear disclaimer; and the display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard. Overall, the Authority considered that the complainant’s objection to the methods shown was not an issue of broadcasting standards.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Responsible Programming, Violence
An episode of Media 7, a weekly commentary and review show on TVNZ7, included an interview with an investigative journalist and foreign correspondent in Afghanistan. He made comments that were critical of a reporter and her account of the Kandahar massacre which had recently been broadcast on Australian current affairs show Dateline. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached the fairness and accuracy standards: the ability to robustly review media is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy; the criticisms overall were aimed at the reporter in her professional, as opposed to her personal, capacity; the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his response was fairly summarised; and the use of Dateline extracts was not unfair. The journalist’s comments were clearly distinguishable as his personal and professional opinion and therefore exempt from standards of accuracy.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
Three news items on One News Tonight and 3 News that covered the debate around legalising “gay marriage” used the word “gay” numerous times to mean “homosexual”. The Authority declined to determine complaints that the items breached the accuracy standard: the Authority has previously declined to determine an identical complaint from this complainant on the ground that it was frivolous and trivial.
Declined to Determine: Accuracy
During a segment on Breakfast, a guest presenter introduced a web video of a children’s television presenter with the comment, “What happens when you put a man like that through Auto-tune? Suddenly there’s LSD in the water!” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the law and order, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards: the presenter’s comment was brief and light-hearted and viewers would not have been encouraged to break the law; Breakfast is an unclassified news and current affairs programme and the comment would not have distressed or alarmed viewers; the comment was silly and oblique – children would not have appreciated its meaning and would not have been encouraged to take LSD.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests