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
When the hosts of the Willie and JT Show were discussing an industrial dispute at the Ports of Auckland, one host expressed his support for the striking workers by saying, for example, “I hope they get aggressive down there at the wharf”, “Go and bust your pickets over some of these scabs”, and, “I am into militant action.” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments breached the law and order and responsible programming standards: the comments amounted to the host’s vehemently expressed opinion and listeners would not have taken them seriously; the broadcast did not encourage listeners to engage in unlawful activity, taking into account the host’s later retractions and other contextual factors; and upholding a complaint about high value protest speech like this would unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. The complaint about responsible programming was subsumed into consideration of law and order.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Responsible Programming
In a segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” on the Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show, broadcast on The Edge, the hosts joked about the names of athletes, including athletes from China, South Korea and Australia. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming: the comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour and the focus was on the athletes’ names, not their nationalities; the comments did not carry any invective or encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community; and they were not socially irresponsible.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Close Up, a current affairs programme broadcast on TV One, reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement. The item profiled an ex-congregation member, X, who claimed she had made substantial donations to the church which left her in a position of financial hardship. The item contained hidden camera footage of a Bishop and Pastor preaching to a large audience about tithes and donations. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the item breached standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming. Though X was identifiable and the item disclosed private facts about her, she was a willing participant and there was insufficient evidence to show she had withdrawn her consent to the broadcast. The Bishop and the Pastor were identifiable in the hidden camera footage but they did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public; in any event the public interest defence applied. The item was clearly framed as X’s opinion and included opinions from members in support of the church. UCKG was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and its statement was adequately summarised in the item. The item did not amount to a “discussion” of a controversial issue, and in any event the broadcaster made reasonable efforts, and gave reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints. The comments did not carry the level of invective necessary to encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
An item on Sunday contained an interview with a man about the fate of his wife who died in the Christchurch earthquake of February 2011, while trapped inside the CTV building. The item showed a sequence of photographs as the reporter stated, “As these police photos show, there were concrete cutters used on the western side of the building, but what about on the side [the woman] and four others were trapped?” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the photographs were inaccurate and misleading because they were allegedly not taken on the day of the earthquake: they were used to illustrate assertions, based on eyewitness evidence, that concrete cutters were available but not used and would not have misled viewers in any significant respect when taken in context.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
During the Willie and JT Show on Radio Live the hosts discussed the recent sentencing of the ‘Urewera Four’, comparing their treatment to that of the complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges. The complainant phoned in to the programme and explained the background to his case but after the phone call had finished the hosts called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter”. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the fairness standard: the hosts’ comments amounted to personal abuse and the complainant was unable to defend himself as the phone call had ended. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments breached the controversial issues standard: though the broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance, the item did not amount to a “discussion” of that issue but presented the hosts’ opinions; and the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts, and given reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints, by allowing the complainant on air.
The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Privacy, Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
No Order
An item on One News included the results of a Colmar Brunton poll on the percentage of party votes for major political parties. The results allegedly did not take account of “undecided voters”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the accuracy standard: the omission of undecided voters was not material given the focus and context of the item which was the decline in the level of support for the National Party, so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect, and the potential harm in terms of impact on voter participation was not significant given the length of time until the next general election.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The complainant alleged that four items on TVNZ News and Close Up breached standards relating to accuracy or law and order. These included footage of a reporter walking backwards which was considered to be dangerous; a reference to a reference to a wildfire covering “an area of around 15,000 rugby fields”; a comment about “letting loose” in a car that could reach speeds of 130 miles per hour; and a comment about the size of hen cages being “4cm more than conventional cages”.
The Authority declined to determine the complaints on the basis they were frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
Declined to Determine: Law and Order, Accuracy
During Michael Laws Talkback, broadcast on Radio Live, the host interviewed the complainant, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association. The host accused her of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements; he made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle”. The Authority held that this was a serious breach of the fairness standard and the action taken by the broadcaster, in upholding only part of the fairness complaint, was insufficient. The Authority did not uphold the accuracy complaint since the host did not make unqualified statements of fact.
The Authority ordered the broadcast of a statement, including an apology to the complainant.
Upheld: Fairness and Action Taken
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming
Order: Broadcast of statement, including apology to complainant
An episode of Last Chance Dogs, a reality television series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners, was broadcast on TV2. It followed three dogs which were taken from their owner by animal control officers because they were not registered and had been aggressive towards other dogs. At the end of the episode a teaser was shown for the next episode, in which the programme’s resident dog trainer was attempting to train one of the three dogs and the dog was shown attacking two dogs in a park. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached the law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards: the programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity and the focus was on dogs being removed from their owner because they were not registered; the programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance; and the responsible programming standard was not applicable.
Not Upheld: Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming