BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments during a documentary on New Zealand’s involvement in the World War I military campaign in Gallipoli breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, one of the presenters was shown a photograph of a woman behind bars, in the context of a conversation about prostitutes being available for troops stationed in Egypt. The presenter then made a derogatory comment about the appearance of the woman. The complainant submitted the comments made in the broadcast denigrated both women and sex workers. The Authority acknowledged that the comment regarding the woman’s appearance in particular, which also diminished the seriousness of some women’s experiences in World War I, was insensitive and unnecessary, and would be considered sexist and offensive to some viewers. However, in the context of the programme as a whole – a documentary depicting New Zealanders’ experiences in World War I, which carried public interest – the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for finding the broadcast encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, women as a section of the community. The Authority noted that occupation is not a recognised ground for discrimination, so sex workers did not amount to a relevant section of the community for the purposes of the standard.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the use of the phrase ‘Jesus Christ’ during Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket. Mr Plunket interviewed the Chief Executive of Universities New Zealand about the charging of holding fees for accommodation at university halls of residence during the COVID-19 lockdown period. At the end of the interview, Mr Plunket used the phrase, ‘Jesus Christ’, reacting to the interviewee’s responses before hanging up on him. Noting it has previously determined that the use of variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations or expressions of frustration or surprise did not threaten community standards, the Authority did not find any breach of the good taste and decency standard in this case.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

An episode of The Panel included an interview with a professor from the department of preventive and social medicine, whose focus is respiratory epidemiology, about his research on the effects of smoking cannabis on the lungs. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview breached the accuracy and balance standards. The Authority did not consider the accuracy standard applied as the interview was a short conversation about the findings of the study where the interviewee was clearly giving his own perspective and analysis, having conducted his own research on the topic. The Authority accepted that the wider debate about cannabis legalisation is a controversial issue of public importance, of which the interview was narrowly focussed on one aspect (the alleged health effects). The Authority was satisfied the broadcaster met its obligations to present a reasonable range of other perspectives both within the programme and in other extensive coverage in the period of current interest.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about an item on Hauraki Drive with Thane Kirby, which alleged that Mr Kirby made a comment suggesting COVID-19 contact-tracing information could be used to contact attractive women. There was an issue with identifying the correct time of broadcast, and the broadcast complained about was not retained by the broadcaster, despite the complainant signaling she would be taking the matter further with the Authority. The Authority also noted the broadcaster should have responded early to the complainant so that she had an opportunity to resubmit her complaint within the required timeframe. Without being able to listen to the actual words used in the broadcast, the tone, and the surrounding context, the Authority concluded it must decline to determine the complaint, which it recognized was a very unsatisfactory outcome. However it noted the Authority’s efforts to seek further information about the broadcast had enabled the broadcaster to address the complaint and uphold it as a breach of the good taste and decency standard.

Declined to Determine: Section 11(b) in all the circumstances

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on RNZ’s Sunday Morning programme with the author of the book, The Final Choice, in the lead-up to the binding referendum on the End of Life Choice Act. The End-of-Life Choice Society complained that the interview was unbalanced and inaccurate, as it presented the book as ‘the truth’, and did not question the author’s independence or her alleged religious affiliations. The Authority noted its role is limited to applying the relevant broadcasting standards and guidelines, and determining whether any harm was caused which outweighed the right to freedom of expression; it is not the Authority’s role to determine whether the author is ‘independent’, or to determine her personal view on the topic. With respect to balance, the Authority was satisfied that the End of Life Choice Act and related issues were widely covered by RNZ within the period of current interest in those topics, including views in support of the End of Life Choice Act. The interviewer and the author also acknowledged the existence of other views within the item, which was adequate in the context. Considering whether the item was inaccurate or misleading in the manner alleged, the Authority noted the interviewer questioned the author about the weighting of views in the book (17:4 opposed to assisted dying) and whether she approached it with any particular position of her own. Overall, the Authority did not find actual or potential harm at a level that justified regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The End-of-Life Choice Society NZ (EOLCS) complained about an item on The Project which included an interview with the author of the book, The Final Choice, in the lead-up to the binding End of Life Choice referendum. EOLCS was concerned that the interview portrayed the book as ‘an independent assessment of the issue’, which was biased and inaccurate. The Authority noted its role is limited to applying the relevant broadcasting standards and guidelines and determining whether any harm was caused which outweighed the right to freedom of expression; it is not the Authority’s role to determine whether the author is ‘independent’, or her personal view on the topic. The Authority did not uphold the balance complaint, as it considered the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints within the programme, and noted that the issue was widely covered throughout the legislative process for the End of Life Choice Act and likely to continue to be covered in the lead-up to the referendum. For similar reasons, and taking the broadcast item as a whole, the Authority did not consider viewers were likely to have been misled in the manner alleged in the complaint. The overarching message of the item, and the author’s interview, was encouraging New Zealanders to become more informed about the issue of end-of-life choice before deciding which way to vote in the upcoming referendum. Therefore upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party that included the statement, ‘Together we went hard and early to fight COVID...’ The complaint was that this statement breached broadcasting standards because it should have said the Labour Party ‘went hard and late’, on the basis it could have taken ‘some action at the border’ earlier than it did, to protect New Zealanders. The Authority found the statement was clearly opinion and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than a statement of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. There was no actual or potential harm caused, to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention.

Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy), Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the word ‘fuck’ in an episode of My Life is Murder, broadcast after 8.35pm without an ‘L’ advisory for offensive language, breached the good taste and decency standard. In the context, including the programme’s nature, classification and intended audience, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a station identity promo for Newstalk ZB news, which listed the names of the station’s flagship presenters followed by the tagline, ‘all the names you can trust’, breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the accuracy standard did not apply, as this was clearly a piece of station branding or marketing (rather than a news, current affairs or factual programme) and the tagline was clearly promotional, rather than making a statement of fact.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that visually displaying the word ‘dickhead’ onscreen during a Newshub item breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority considered that in the context of the item, which canvassed public opinion towards Simon Bridges, the visual depiction of the word ‘dickhead’ would not have caused widespread undue offence, or distress, and would not have undermined widely shared community values.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency