|
Note from the Chief Executive
Kia ora
It’s reporting time for us, so we’re drafting our annual report. We’ve been reflecting on our work over the past year and the context in which we’ve been working. As you all know, it’s still a rapidly changing media environment. Content is now accessible in digital form across multiple devices. Media providers increasingly deliver content across various platforms. The integration of social media in our lives means that today New Zealanders are increasingly both media consumers and media contributors, and content is not static but evolves through conversations.
These changes pose challenges for regulation that policymakers all over the world are grappling with. We welcome any discussion on the future of media regulation while acknowledging that determining its appropriate shape is not straightforward. In the meantime, we still work to ensure that we apply standards in a meaningful way in the context of our shifting landscape.
Finally, we hope you'll enjoy reading our profiles of BSA staff, a feature we'll include for the next several months.
Nga mihi
Karen Scott-Howman
|
|
|
|
Introducing...
Alexandra Lewin
Executive Administrator/
Communications Assistant
Before joining us at the BSA, Alex was at Broadcasting School studying Journalism. Prior to that, she was at Victoria University studying Media Studies and Politics. Alex has set up and manages our BSA twitter account, among many other things. She is currently in the process of training for a half marathon and loves dogs.
|
|
|
|
Complaints about Free-to-Air TV Broadcasts
|
|
|
Aranyi & Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-036
At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, host Mike Hosking offered his views on the incident of Prime Minister John Key's repeated pulling of a café waitress' ponytail. He described the waitress' motivations for speaking out as 'selfish' and 'a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks'. The Authority upheld complaints that this was unfair to the waitress. While public figures can expect criticism and robust scrutiny, in the Authority's view the waitress was not a public figure. The format of the 'final word' segment did not allow for a response from the waitress so she was unable to defend herself in this context. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
No Order
Read our media release about this decision here.
|
|
|
|
Murray and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-041
A presenter on the satirical cooking programme Posh Nosh, broadcast on ANZAC Day, described the presentation of food on a plate as 'dreadful, stacked up like dead soldiers in a trench'. The presenter also described the placement of a lemon on a fish as looking like 'I've got a yellow hat up my bottom'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these comments were offensive and inappropriate. The programme was unrelated to ANZAC Day and the comments would not have offended most reasonable viewers in context.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
|
|
|
|
White and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-042
An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse by a man, P against a 90-year-old woman, E. The programme also featured P's 'mentor' (M), a spokesperson from E's bank and comment from E and her grandson. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. Both P and M were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment, the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the item was accurate and the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required the presentation of alternative views.
Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial Issues
|
|
|
|
Insley & Soryl and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-028
A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Responsible Programming
|
|
|
|
Complaint about Pay TV Broadcast
|
|
McCaw and SKY Network Television Ltd - 2015-011
The music video for Nicki Minaj's song 'Only' was broadcast on MTV at 6.50pm, in a segment classified MC. The Authority upheld the complaint that the numerous expletives and sexual references in the video were distasteful and unsuitable for uncensored broadcast at a time when younger viewers were watching. The video was incorrectly classified MC when it should have been 16LC and the explicit adult content exceeded audience expectations of the MC classification. The incorrect classification also meant that filtering technology would not have been as effective in preventing children from viewing the video as it should have been.
Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children
Order: Section 16(4) - $1,500 costs to the Crown
Read our media release about this decision here.
|
|
|
|
Complaint about Radio Broadcast
|
|
|
Yates and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2015-046
An item on Worldwatch reported on a request from the Iraqi Prime Minister to President Obama for continued assistance in defeating Islamic State militants in his country. Another item reported on a rally which took place in Nigeria's capital to mark the first anniversary of the abduction of some 200 school girls by the 'terrorist group Boko Haram'. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of the terms 'Islamist terrorism' and 'terrorist' was selective and denigrated people who follow Islam. The references were accurate, did not carry any invective and were not exclusive to Islamic groups so the programme as a whole could not be considered to encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, all people of the Islamic religion. The complainant did not specify who he believed had been treated unfairly.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness
|
|
|
|
|
