An item on TV3’s 60 Minutes told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 and turned himself in to police 24 years later. It included very brief footage of the front porch of the complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that this was where the murder had taken place. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards relating to the privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards: the complainant was not identifiable through the footage of her house; while the footage and the implication that the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item, so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect; the complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item; and the responsible programming standard was not applicable.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming
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
The ZM Morning Crew hosts ran a competition called “Racial Profiling”, in which the hosts and a contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards: on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes but the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping, and freedom of expression outweighed the potential harm caused; and the broadcast did not encourage denigration or discrimination, but was an attempt at humour and satire which are recognised as important freedoms of speech.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration
An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3, reported on voluntary euthanasia in the context of New Zealand law. The item included interviews with two strong advocates of euthanasia. Taking into account the focus of the item and the nature of issue, the Authority did not uphold the complaint that it breached the controversial issues standard: euthanasia is a controversial issue of public importance, and the item did not purport to discuss all the arguments for and against euthanasia but was presented from the perspective of one of the advocates. Euthanasia is a long-running moral issue with an ongoing period of current interest, and alternative viewpoints were adequately included.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
During the All Night Programme, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National, a guest reviewed a book called Himmler’s brain is called Heydrich, which was about the assassination of Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich by Czech patriots during World War II. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the review breached the good taste and decency standard: the review did not minimise the horror of the Holocaust or the events depicted in the novel, and the book was presented as an historical fictional novel that was a blend of fact and fiction.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One, profiled the complainant and introduced him by referring to some of his previous complaints, including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy and fairness standards: the item did not suggest that all or most of Mr McDonald’s complaints were unfounded but that he complained “too often about too little”; it provided a context to the complaints, and the complainant was able to put forward his own perspective. Accuracy was subsumed into the Authority’s discussion of fairness.
Not Upheld: Fairness
Subsumed: Accuracy (into Fairness)
Items on 1XX News, broadcast on One-Double-X, reported on repeat complaints about campaign overspending by the successful candidate in the 2010 Whakatane local body elections and stated: “Detective Inspector [name] says the Independent Police Conduct Authority determined [the police] investigation was thorough and followed correct procedure. The Ombudsman backed this up.” The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards: the focus of the item was the repeat complaints and not the adequacy or otherwise of the police investigation into overspending and the brief news updates did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance; the statement was not a material point of fact but was clearly attributed to the detective inspector and reflected the contents of the police press release, and the distinction between “thorough” and “adequate” was not material.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy
At approximately 9.11pm during Kerre Woodham Talkback, the host said, “You fricken moron”, in response to a caller’s comment that having a disability was the result of “inbreeding”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comment breached the good taste and decency and responsible programming standards: the comment was broadcast after 9pm during a talkback programme targeted at adults, it would not have surprised or offended most listeners, and its broadcast in this context was not socially irresponsible.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
A 3 News item on the Conservative Party leader and apparent party practices commented on the party’s “distinctly Christian streak”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the discrimination and denigration standard: the item was a legitimate and straightforward news report which did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration
An item on One News reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The item contained footage of an SPCA raid at the complainant’s property and archive photographs of cats and dogs there. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy, fairness and privacy standards: the reporter’s summary of the court judgment captured the essence of a complex decision; the archive photographs and footage were used as visual wallpaper and would not have misled viewers; the complainant was provided with an adequate opportunity to comment; and though he was identifiable the photographs were legitimately obtained by SPCA, and the use of archive footage was justified, given the ongoing focus on the complainant’s breeding activities.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness