The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party which included questions on possible funding cuts a National-led government might make. The complaint was that these statements were an inaccurate portrayal of National’s proposed cuts. The Authority found the statements were clearly questions and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than statements of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. The harm alleged was not sufficient 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. Standard E4: Misleading Programmes did not apply.
Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy), E4: Misleading Programmes
The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme misled the public by giving ‘the impression’ the National Party’s policies would support public services, which was in ‘direct contradiction to their proposed policies’. The Authority considered listeners would have understood the programme as a typical advertisement for the Party, encouraging the public to vote for National. By their nature, such programmes are not factual and are often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy. Further, it is not the Authority’s role to analyse the likely implications of any Party’s policies (which are not quantified promises, guarantees, or statements of fact), and listeners are able to form their own views about any given policy with reference to the broad range of available media coverage and other publicly available information.
Not Upheld: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy
The Authority has not upheld a complaint an interview on Midday Report with a transgender activist, who discussed whether Immigration New Zealand should allow Posie Parker to enter New Zealand, breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards. The complainant considered: the host’s description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans activist,’ along with other comments made by the interviewee, were inaccurate; the host was biased; the interview was unbalanced as it did not include the perspective of a women’s rights activist; and that it was unfair to Parker and her supporters. The Authority did not uphold the concerns, finding the broadcast was materially accurate, was clearly approaching the topic from a particular perspective, and did not result in any unfairness.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate and unfair to describe WikiLeaks as a ‘hacktivist’ organisation during a RNZ news bulletin reporting on a rise in hacktivism, and how hacktivists often work together with cyber-criminal groups. The Authority found that the term being used to describe Wikileaks was not a material inaccuracy, given WikiLeaks’ role in the hacktivist ‘ecosystem’. The Authority further found the report was not unfair to WikiLeaks or its founder.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
The Authority has declined to determine a complaint the use of the term ‘iTaukei’ to refer to indigenous Fijians breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In light of the Authority’s previous finding that a similarly innocuous use of the term did not breach broadcasting standards, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.
Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration
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 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 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 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