The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Te Karere item reporting on the tangihanga of a prominent Māori activist and author breached the offensive and disturbing content, and privacy standards. The complaint was that the general fact of filming inside the whare tūpuna (meeting house) at the tangi was highly offensive as it was contrary to tikanga and the deceased’s wishes, and that the broadcast breached the complainant’s, the deceased’s and tūpuna (ancestors’) privacy. The Authority acknowledged the broadcast contributed to the distress and upset felt by the complainant. However, applying the standards and having regard to external cultural advice, the Authority did not consider the broadcast was likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress to Te Karere’s audience. The Authority noted: the broadcaster appeared to have taken appropriate steps to respect and comply with relevant tikanga and obtain the appropriate permissions; the public interest in the broadcast; audience expectations of Te Karere; and the respectful tone of the item. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach the complainant’s privacy, as the brief footage of the complainant at the tangi was not highly offensive. The privacy standard does not apply to deceased individuals.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Privacy
The Authority has not upheld four complaints that interviews on Q+A with Israeli and Palestinian representatives breached multiple broadcasting standards. On 21 April 2024, Jack Tame from Q+A interviewed Ran Yaakoby, the Israeli Ambassador to New Zealand. On 5 May 2024, Q+A interviewed Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi, head of the Palestinian Delegation to New Zealand. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims that: statements made by Yaakoby and Tame were inaccurate; Tame did not push back hard enough on Yaakoby; the interviews did not provide balance; the 21 April interview was unfair to Hamas, offensive, and discriminatory. The Authority did not uphold complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis: the relevant points concerned opinion to which the standard does not apply; reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy; any harm was outweighed by freedom of expression; or the points were not materially inaccurate. The balance standard was not breached due to the widespread reporting of significant perspectives on the conflict and because the interviews were each clearly signalled as providing the interviewees’ perspectives. The Authority found content in the 21 April interview was not unfair to Hamas, would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience, and did not reach the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also noted the high public interest in current affairs coverage of the Israel/Hamas conflict and the valuable expression contained in the interviews, finding any harm caused by the relevant broadcasts was insufficient to outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the audience’s right to hear, and judge for themselves, the arguments of the Israeli government.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, and Fairness
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance
The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement by TVNZ’s Seven Sharp reporter that a film was set ‘amid a nationwide confiscation of Māori land’ during an interview with actor Temuera Morrison. The complainant alleged confiscations were not nationwide, and that Māori land dispossession can be attributed in part to legitimate land sales to the Crown. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material in the context of a segment focusing on Morrison’s acting career and promotion of a film, and that, in any case, it was not misleading to refer to ‘nationwide confiscation’ considering the extent of contested Māori land dispossession which occurred in the relevant period.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy and fairness standards about a broadcast of 1News discussing the United States’ decision to send more combat aircraft and war ships to the Middle East following the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. The complainant argued the broadcast was unbalanced and biased towards American and Israeli interests by omitting to mention Haniyeh was the chief negotiator for Hamas in ceasefire negotiations relating to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. The Authority found the broadcast was more of a report on recent events than a discussion of issues to which the balance standard might apply. Even if the balance standard applied, it would not have been breached as the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of the relevant matters from other reporting; the item was a short news item focused on events and did not purport to present a balanced examination of Israel’s motivations or the significance of killing the Hamas leader and ceasefire negotiator; and it featured comments from a variety of perspectives and sources. The accuracy and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached.
Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness
The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News report on the recent rise in COVID-19 infections in New Zealand. The complainant alleged the programme was unbalanced for not mentioning a Cleveland Clinic study, which he alleged ‘shows a higher number of covid cases for each dose of the covid vaccine’, or other information about the effectiveness of the vaccine. The Authority declined to determine the complaint as the broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance and the broadcaster’s decision adequately addressed the complaint.
Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored. Neither ‘GC’ nor the c-word were used to discriminate against or denigrate women. The remaining standards did not apply.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, 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 an item on RNZ’s 9am news bulletin about an electricity shortage in New Zealand breached multiple standards. The complaint focused on the broadcast’s allegedly inappropriate use of terms such as energy, fossil fuels, power and electricity and the omission of contextual information. In the context of the news bulletin, the Authority found RNZ’s audience was unlikely to be misled. Accordingly, the accuracy standard was not breached. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached.
Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness
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