The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of The Feed discussing issues faced by rainbow communities breached multiple standards. The complaint alleged the programme, which was aimed at children, was one-sided in favour of the ‘trans lifestyle’ and did not include balancing content about the ‘heterosexual lifestyle’, and accordingly amounted to illegal gender reassignment therapy or grooming. The Authority found the programme content carried high value and public interest by raising and exploring issues and perspectives in relation to rainbow communities, and through promoting diversity and inclusion. It was satisfied the programme would not cause widespread offence or adversely affect children. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached.
Not upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a joke made on 7 Days breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The show featured a segment where comedians were asked to come up with scary kids’ shows, to which one of the responses was ‘High School Musical 4: The Active Shooter.’ The complainant alleged this joke was offensive due to recent school shootings in the United States. The Authority found the joke was not outside of audience expectations for the programme, and the nature of the content was sufficiently signposted through audience advisories. In this context, the joke was not likely to widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content
The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration
A news bulletin on Newstalk ZB reported on the upcoming speaking tour of New Zealand by Posie Parker. The complainant considered the item’s portrayal of Parker (including through its tone and description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and a ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ rather than a ‘women’s rights campaigner’) was in breach of the balance, fairness, accuracy and discrimination and denigration broadcasting standards. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply as the item was a straightforward news report which did not ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance and, in any event, listeners would have been aware of alternative viewpoints. The Authority also found, given Parker’s views, the descriptions ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ were fair and accurate. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply.
Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy
The Authority did not uphold a complaint a report on 1 News showing footage of a homicide at a Raumanga service station breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. The complainant considered it was inappropriate to show footage of ‘a murder being committed,’ and that it promoted antisocial behaviour. The Authority found the footage was justified in the context, noting there was no unreasonable or unnecessary degree of graphic detail, news programmes by their nature often feature challenging material, and the introduction to the item (which signposted the ‘confronting video clip’ and included a warning) adequately informed viewers of the nature of the footage, enabling them to choose not to watch. It also noted the public interest in showing the footage given Police’s request for assistance in the matter. The Authority further found the item did not encourage or promote illegal or antisocial behaviour.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour
An item on 1 News reported on Posie Parker entering Aotearoa New Zealand for speaking events, and explored the opposition she would face from transgender rights supporters. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the item was biased and unbalanced. While the broadcast did discuss a controversial issue of public importance for the purpose of the balance standard, the item clearly signalled it was approaching the issue from the perspective of transgender communities intending to attend the counter‑protest, sufficiently signalled the major perspectives on the issue, and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of alternative perspectives in any case.
Not Upheld: Balance
The Authority has not upheld a complaint a 1 News item on the Ministerial Inquiry into woody debris (including forestry slash) and sediment in Tairāwhiti | Gisborne and Wairoa was inaccurate, due to the inclusion of some background footage of a forest near Tūrangi which had suffered windthrow. The complainant alleged the footage misled the audience to think forest damaged by windthrow was an example of what poor practices in the forestry sector look like. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material, and would not have significantly impacted viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Sunday breached the complainant’s privacy, and was unfair to the complainant, by broadcasting an image taken on the complainant’s property. The Authority found the complainant was not identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard, and was not ‘referred to’ in the broadcast for the purposes of the fairness standard.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness
The Authority has not upheld two complaints about Prime News’ coverage of King Charles’ coronation on 1 and 2 May 2023. The complainant alleged the first broadcast was unbalanced as it only included interviews with people who were opposed to the idea of the public being asked to participate in a pledge of allegiance to the King. They further considered the second broadcast was inaccurate as the reporter did not back up their introductory statement ‘Love him or loathe him, in London right now, you can't escape him’ with evidence that people did loathe King Charles, and described a souvenir of the King ‘as a clown’. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply to the first broadcast as the decision to add a public pledge of allegiance was not a controversial issue of public importance, and the issue of public support for the monarchy was not ‘discussed’ in the broadcast as contemplated under that standard. The Authority found no inaccuracy in the second broadcast.
Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of So Dumb its Criminal broadcast at 9.30pm on Duke breached the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast, hosted by Snoop Dogg, featured a panel of Black comedians commenting on clips of criminals making ‘dumb’ mistakes. The commentary by the panel included multiple uses of the n-word, jokes about white people and ‘white privilege’, and what appeared to be a reference to a fictional kung fu character when describing one of the people featured. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the n-word, it noted this word has been ‘reclaimed’ by the communities affected by it, and was used in the broadcast by Black comedians joking amongst themselves. It also noted that while the jokes made by the presenters had the potential to offend some people, they were a legitimate expression of humour and/or satire, and were not made with malice or nastiness. Ultimately, taking into account other contextual factors including the programme’s 16LC rating, the time of the broadcast, and an explicit preceding warning that the programme contained frequent use of coarse language and content that may disturb some people, the Authority found the broadcast did not contain material of a level reaching the high threshold for finding a breach under the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration