BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a news item reporting on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ likelihood of not returning to Parliament after the General Election. The item did not discuss a controversial issue, so the balance standard did not apply. It was not unfair to Mr Peters, given his position as an elected public figure and experience dealing with the media. Coverage of political issues close to Election Day is not in itself a breach of broadcasting standards.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Saturday Morning, in which host Kim Hill interviewed physician journalist and COVID-19 expert Dr Norman Swan. The complaint was that Dr Swan’s comments distinguishing between Long-Haul COVID-19 and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome normalised stigmatisation of the latter and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but found the comments did not reach the high threshold of harm that justifies restricting freedom of expression under the standard.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that various 1 News items referring to Joe Biden as the ‘president-elect’ before confirmation by the United States Electoral College breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found this was a technical distinction that would not have altered viewers’ overall understanding of the items, therefore it was not a ‘material’ point of fact for the purposes of the accuracy standard. To the extent the items touched on the outcome of the United States election, which in some circumstances may amount to a controversial issue of public importance triggering the balance standard, the Authority was satisfied the standard was not breached taking into account the perspectives acknowledged within the items as well as in a wide range of other coverage both by TVNZ and media generally. The Authority also found the items did not result in any unfairness to President Donald Trump.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Paramedics, which twice played footage of a young man suffering an allergic reaction exclaiming ‘Fuck, I can’t breathe’, with the audio censored so the word was partially silenced, and the subtitles uncensored. The episode aired during an M classification time band, at 7.30pm, and was preceded by a warning which stated ‘This programme is rated M. It contains coarse language.’ The ‘ML’ rating was also broadcast after each advertisement break, with the ‘L’ advisory symbol indicating ‘language may offend’. In the context, the language used would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress, and was not beyond what viewers would have reasonably expected from the programme.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the phrase ‘thank fucking Christ’ in an interview segment during the Aotearoa Music Awards breached the good taste and decency standard. In the context, particularly noting the timing of the broadcast, pre-broadcast warnings and public interest in the relevant segment, the Authority considered the programme unlikely to cause widespread undue offence, or distress, or to undermine widely shared community standards.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

A number of news bulletins on Morning Report reported findings from fact-checking group First Draft about political spending on Facebook advertising in the lead-up to the 2020 General Election and referendums. Two complaints alleged the bulletins inaccurately reported pro-cannabis group Make It Legal NZ had misleading ads removed from Facebook. The Authority did not uphold the complaints, finding although the morning bulletins were misleading and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of those reports, a later news bulletin during Midday Report was sufficient to clarify and correct the misleading impression created earlier. The Authority also found Make It Legal was not treated unfairly, as it is a lobby group that could reasonably expect a level of public scrutiny, and it was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the morning news items.  

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness

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

The Authority has upheld a complaint that the frequent use of ‘fuck’ (and variations) during A Life on the Road breached the good taste and decency standard. The episode featured Brian Johnson of AC/DC talking to Lars Ulrich of Metallica about touring in the early 90s, along with footage from the tours and interviews with Metallica crew and fans. It was broadcast at 12pm with a ‘PGL’ rating (Parental Guidance; language may offend). The Authority found this did not provide sufficient reliable information to signpost the level and frequency of language in the programme and did not give the audience an adequate opportunity to exercise choice and control – meaning they were more likely to be surprised and offended by the content. The Authority found an ‘M’ rating and more detailed onscreen warning, for example for ‘frequent coarse language’, would have been more appropriate for the content and more consistent with the requirements of the Code.

Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

No Order

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Dasam Granth Da Sach. During the programme the host made comments about a well-known female Sikh preacher, including that she should marry a Taksali (traditionally trained Sikh) rather than a Jāgaruka (enlightened Sikh), because she supports the ideology of the former, and because husbands ‘in our society’ resort to beating when offended by their wives. The host also used words that can carry sexual connotations but, in the specific context of the broadcast, were unlikely to do so. The Authority acknowledged the potentially offensive nature of the comments to some people, but found overall the potential harm arising was not at a level justifying regulatory intervention or restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Privacy, Fairness

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb. It featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. Close-up footage, including a side-on view of part of her face (unblurred), revealed her demographic, gender, the length and colour of her hair, voice, profile of her nose, clothes, watch, a distinctive ring and the side of her glasses. The Authority found these features enabled identification of the interviewee beyond family and close friends. Their disclosure would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in her position, given she participated on the understanding she would not be identified. The Authority was not persuaded the defence of informed consent applied to the breach of the woman’s privacy. The broadcaster maintained the interviewee was comfortable with the item broadcast (and later obtained a note from her to this effect). However, the broadcaster did not provide sufficient evidence the interviewee fully understood she would be depicted in a manner that enabled her to be identified, and gave informed consent for this prior to the broadcast.

Upheld: Privacy

No Order

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Morning Report which briefly discussed soil contamination at, and the possible repurposing of, a chemical plant site in Paritutu, New Plymouth. The complainant, an interviewee on the broadcast, argued the item misrepresented likely contamination levels by citing test results from outside of the plant site, and through a comment that the site was cleaner than that at Mapua. The Authority found the statements complained about either were not materially inaccurate, or were clearly distinguishable as opinion, to which the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply. The broadcast was unlikely to mislead listeners. The balance and fairness standards either did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness