The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Highway Cops breached the privacy standard. A segment of the programme focused on a car accident in which the complainant was the victim. It included blurred shots of them being treated on a stretcher post-accident, as well as brief CCTV footage of the accident occurring and the complainant exiting their car and dropping to their hands and knees on the road. The Authority acknowledged the accident was a traumatic event for the complainant, and the impact having the footage aired on national television without their consent had on them. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, it found disclosure of the particular footage in the broadcast was not of a ‘highly offensive’ nature, noting the brevity of the footage, the complainant was obscured/blurred or very difficult to make out in the footage and the complainant was not shown doing anything an objective reasonable person would find embarrassing or that would impact on their reputation.
Not Upheld: Privacy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on an instance of alleged illegal fishing in a marine reserve. The introduction stated, ‘A dive company owner has described [the fishing] as a “blatant and reckless raiding party”. Video posted on social media appears to show the men at the Poor Knights Islands [which has] been protected for decades…’ Clips of the video were shown in the item, with the individuals’ faces blurred. The complaint was that the story was ‘ill informed’ and had caused ‘a lot of harm’ to the individuals involved and their families, including death threats. The Authority found no breach of the accuracy or fairness standards, noting: the incident was accurately reported as ‘alleged’ and under investigation; the public nature of the content prior to the broadcast; the high public interest in the alleged illegal fishing; the reporter had contacted the person who posted the content, giving an opportunity to comment; and Newshub reported on that person’s apology and explanation posted on social media the following day.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
The Authority has not upheld two complaints that it was inaccurate for a 1News reporter to state ‘[The International Court of Justice] so far has said it's plausible that genocide is happening on the ground in Gaza’. The complainants alleged the court’s ruling only stated Palestinians had plausible rights to be protected from genocide, rather than finding genocide was plausible. The Authority found the nature of the ICJ ruling represented a statement of fact to which the standard applied, but did not consider the statement was materially misleading taking into account the legal technicalities in the ruling and the subsequent clarification, the continued debate around the ICJ’s ‘plausibility’ test, and the context of the item.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News segment on various extreme weather events in the United States breached the accuracy standard on the basis it did not refer to the climate crisis as a causative factor. The Authority found not mentioning the climate crisis did not give a wrong idea or impression of the events depicted and would not have misled viewers. Whether or not to mention climate change was a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item on tax cuts in the Government’s 2024 Budget breached the balance and fairness standards by portraying the tax cuts negatively, thereby misrepresenting the views of New Zealanders. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as significant perspectives on the Budget were presented, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views, and the standard does not apply to concerns of bias. It also found the broadcast consistent with the level of robust scrutiny and political analysis that could reasonably be expected of politicians, so the fairness standard was not breached.
Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness
The Authority has not upheld a complaint a 1News item on 80-year commemorations for D-Day breached the accuracy standard by stating that D-Day ‘was the turning point in the war against Nazi Germany’. The complainant considered this was inaccurate as D-Day was only the turning point for the Western Front, not the Eastern Front or World War II as a whole. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material to the segment, and would not have impacted audience’s understanding of the broadcast as a whole.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has upheld part of a complaint about satirical comedy series, James Must-a-pic His Mum a Man, finding it was unfair to the complainant, James Mustapic’s father, and action taken by the broadcaster (having upheld two aspects of the fairness complaint) was not sufficient to remedy potential harm to the complainant. Comments were made throughout the series which the Authority found created a negative impression of James’ father and had the potential to adversely affect him and his reputation – meaning the broadcaster should, in the interests of fairness, have informed him of the nature of the programme and his participation prior to broadcast. The Authority acknowledged the action taken by TVNZ (apologising to the complainant, adding a disclaimer to the start of each episode, and making significant edits to the programme content) and found that was sufficient to address the single privacy breach (implying the complainant did not pay child support). However, there had not been any public acknowledgement of the breach to date, to remedy potential reputational damage. The Authority did not uphold the rest of the complaint: no other information was disclosed about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy; and the accuracy standard did not apply.
Upheld: Fairness – Action Taken. Not Upheld: Privacy – Action Taken, Accuracy.
No Order
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness
The Authority has upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard during a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley on ZM was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the item, which discussed searching for the cheapest alcohol with the highest alcohol by volume (ABV), amounted to alcohol promotion that was socially irresponsible. While the broadcaster upheld the complaint, removed the relevant segment from their online podcast and counselled the content directors and hosts of ZM on their obligations around alcohol promotion, the Authority found this was insufficient to remedy the harm caused by the broadcast – noting, in particular, there had not yet been any public acknowledgement of the breach for the audience.
Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour (Action Taken)
Order: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Married at First Sight New Zealand breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The episode featured couples getting ‘married’ at a resort in Vanuatu. It included two scenes (pre- and post-ceremony) of one of the grooms and his groomsman urinating into bushes, with their streams of urine visible. The Authority found the scenes of the men urinating were within audience expectations for the programme, and the nature of the content was sufficiently signposted through audience advisories. In this context, the scenes were not likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content