BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

An item on One News reported on court proceedings involving the complainant, a professional harness racing trainer and driver. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that two statements in the item were inaccurate and unfair, because they allegedly portrayed her as a ‘drugs cheat’ and were misleading. Taking into account all of the charges and the nature of the offending, the statements would not have misled viewers and did not cause any unwarranted harm to the complainant’s reputation.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

An episode of Renters showed the inspection of a rental property in circumstances where the tenant was not home. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast breached the tenant’s privacy. By the time of this repeat broadcast in June 2013, the tenant had not lived at the property for some years, so she was not identifiable from the broadcast. Nevertheless the Authority expressed concern about the production company’s ‘usual practice’ of only notifying and obtaining consent from the landlord, and not the tenant.

Not Upheld: Privacy

An episode of Futurama, an animated cartoon series, contained sexual references and innuendo. The episode which was classified G (General) screened on FOUR at 6.30pm. The Authority considered that the sexual content was not suitable for unsupervised child viewers and that the episode was incorrectly classified G when it should have been classified PGR. The broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests when incorrectly classifying the episode and screening it in G time

Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests

No Order

An item on 3rd Degree reported on a Korean man X who was ousted from his local church community for his participation in a ‘mockumentary’ about North Korea. The programme included an interview with the editor of a local Korean newspaper (one of the complainants), and attempted to interview a priest from X’s church. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the story was unfair to the interviewees and breached the newspaper editor’s privacy. The programme made genuine attempts to obtain comment from the interviewees, and they were treated fairly. The newspaper editor agreed to an interview so the broadcast did not disclose any private facts about him. The story did not discuss a controversial issue which required the presentation of alternative views; it focused on one man’s personal experiences.

Not Upheld: Privacy, Controversial Issues, Fairness

During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration

During two items on One News the presenters used the term "anti-gay" to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage. The complainant argued that the term was misleading and offensive and denigrated people who opposed same-sex marriage. The Authority considered the use of the term "anti-gay" was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, but it was corrected by the context of the items, which were obviously discussing gay marriage. The term did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage, and viewers would not have been deceived by the use of the term.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming

Close Up reported on comments made by the Principal of Pompallier Catholic College in a school newsletter, objecting to gay marriage. The item claimed that the Principal suspended a teacher, who was interviewed by Close Up, and that students who opposed the comments were "threatened". A news ticker on Breakfast the following morning echoed the claims. The school argued the programmes were misleading and unfair, because the teacher was suspended for reasons other than his objection to the Principal's views, and no students were threatened. The Authority found that Close Up did not fairly present the reasons for the suspension, which created an unfairly negative impression of the Principal and the College, who were not given a fair chance to comment. It said the item should have couched the "threats" as allegations or the students' views, rather than unequivocal statements of fact. The Breakfast ticker was not material in the context of the programme.

Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

No Order

Horace in Slow Motion, a short children's cartoon, showed Horace the pig 'picking his nose and eating it'. The complainant argued this was completely unacceptable by society's standards. The Authority thought the programme used typical children's humour – which the broadcaster referred to as "gross out" humour – and the dialogue in the show acknowledged it was "gross", indicating to children this type of behaviour was not socially acceptable.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

An episode of Home and Away, which was classified G, included a storyline about the date rape of a teenage girl. The Authority agreed with the complainant that the theme of rape was unsuitable for unsupervised child viewers and that the programme was incorrectly classified. The Authority made no order, noting that the programme was now screened on another television network.

Upheld: Responsible Programming

No Order

Items on Q + A and Marae Investigates focused on the issue of domestic violence. The complainant argued that the programmes were unbalanced and discriminatory because they did not acknowledge that men could be victims of domestic violence, as well as women. The Authority said the items were clearly framed as focusing on men's violence against women, so it was not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could also be victims. The programmes did not denigrate or discriminate against all men as a section of the community.

Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s interests