Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item investigated claims that truck drivers were working hours in excess of the legal maximum, and that some were using drugs to stay awake – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – reasonable opportunities given to present significant points of view – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Friedlander of the Road Transport Forum NZ – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item called “High Way” on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 20 June 2005 investigated claims that truck drivers were working hours in excess of the legal maximum, and that some were using drugs to stay awake....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 60 Minutes – item reporting on the reaction to the proposed Civil Union Bill before Parliament – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on 60 Minutes entitled “Union Trouble” was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2004 at 7. 30pm. The focus of this segment was the reaction of various groups to the proposed Civil Union Bill. [2] The broadcast included interviews with the Pastor of the Destiny Church, a gay couple, a lesbian Presbyterian Minister and the managing director of the Maxim Institute. Complaints [3] Rachel Trimble complained to CanWest TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the 60 Minutes programme was neither balanced nor impartial....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989From Hell – movie about the Jack the Ripper murders – screened during school holidays – man cut the buttons off woman’s dress in the first few minutes – allegedly contrary to children’s interestsFindings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – no actual violence – shown in AO timeband – warning before programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The movie From Hell, which followed a 19th century detective trying to solve the “Jack the Ripper” case, was broadcast on TV3 on 12 July 2004 at 8. 30pm. Complaint [2] Penny Jones, trustee of the Campaign for Our Children organisation, complained to CanWest TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, on behalf of the organisation that the broadcast was contrary to children’s interests....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd. Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Interlocutory decision on production of field tape of interview with representative from Ministry of Health - featured in 3 News Special entitled "Let Us Spray" on 23 October 2006 RulingOrder made to supply tape to the Authority – section 12 Broadcasting Act 1989 and section 4C Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Background [1] A 3 News Special entitled "Let Us Spray" was broadcast on Monday 23 October 2006 at 7. 30pm on TV3....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on singles looking for love – showed footage of people apparently at singles party – complainants shown – complainants were not at party – footage of them taken several years ago – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – accuracy and fairness complaints upheld – privacy complaint declined – complainants referred privacy complaint to AuthorityFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On 29 May 2006, TV3’s Campbell Live, broadcast at 7. 00pm, included an item about singles “looking for love”. The item focussed on a singles party held recently in Auckland, and showed numerous shots of people socialising, apparently at the party, including a shot of the complainants smiling for the camera....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair, unbalanced and in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 9g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – time of broadcast – standard does not apply – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Popetown, called “Derby Day” screened on C4 at 9. 30pm, on 10 August 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about pyjamas purchased from The Warehouse that had ignited and burned a five-year-old boy while he was standing next to a gas heater – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster upheld one aspect of accuracy – balance, fairness and dissatisfaction with action taken referred to AuthorityFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – action taken by broadcaster on aspect it upheld was sufficient – no other inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to The Warehouse in the preparation and presentation of the programme – upheld Orders Broadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $3,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Simpsons – use of the words “wanker” and “ass” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – PGR classification – PGR timeslot – words used in satirical rather than abusive manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Simpsons screened on TV3 at 7pm on 30 September 2004. At the beginning of the programme Homer Simpson described his favourite programme about a family of English soccer hooligans, saying “if they’re not having a go with a bird they’re having a row with a wanker”. [2] Later in the episode another character said “it’s a beautiful day to kick your ass”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9. 30pm on 22 June 2005. The series was set in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown), and was centred around a young priest called Father Nicholas, a group of corrupt cardinals and a child-like Pope character. [2] During the episode on 22 June 2005, Father Nicholas became a wrestling hero after accidentally knocking out pro-wrestler “Ivan the Invincible”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting research that men who were not circumcised were three times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than those who were – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on 7 November 2006 at 6pm on TV3, reported that research carried out by the Christchurch School of Medicine had revealed that men who were not circumcised were three times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than those who were. The reporter said that the study had followed 500 males from birth to 25 years of age....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the decision. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – “Ticking Time Bomb” – reported that Phillip Edwards, who had been charged with the murder of David McNee and convicted of manslaughter, had previously been implicated in an attack on another man – police did not prosecute – other man’s name disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – Privacy Principles iii), v), and vi) – no unjustified invasion of man’s privacy - man’s name disclosed as aspect of current affairs item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A 20/20 item, “Ticking Time Bomb”, revealed that Phillip Edwards, who was arrested for the murder of television celebrity David McNee, had earlier been implicated in an attack on another man....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interviewed Phyllis Tarawhiti who had been recently released from a prison in Thailand – included footage of family and friends at her 50th birthday party – item also included a photo of a family portrait – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage from birthday party disclosed private facts – disclosure not highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 2 April 2007, interviewed Phyllis Tarawhiti, a woman who had recently been released from prison in Thailand and who had returned home to New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – footage of teenagers committing animal cruelty offences – images of hedgehogs and ducks subjected to cruelty – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 – good taste and decency – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 – children’s interests – contextual factors, particularly warnings, were sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV3 broadcast an item on 25 July 2005 at 7. 30pm entitled “God’s Creatures”, as part of the 60 Minutes current affairs programme. The item covered the recent arrest of two people in Huntly for animal cruelty. The item also dealt with the suggested link between animal cruelty and subsequent violent offences against people. [2] The item reported that the teenagers had set fire to cages which had trapped two feral cats....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – item about security camera outside apartment in Auckland – owners concerned that camera would capture images inside their home – item said the Police had assured them that camera was broken, and once fixed any images would be pixellated – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss issue of controversial public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – one statement misleading – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item dealt justly and fairly with the Police – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On TV3 at 6pm on 30 November 2005, an item was broadcast on 3 News about a security camera positioned outside the apartment of an Auckland couple....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News Special – programme entitled “Let Us Spray” – discussed some of the issues surrounding the manufacture of chemicals at the Dow Chemical plant in Paritutu – showed images of babies born with various deformities – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subject matter easily recognisable as being appropriate for adults – clear and sufficient warnings immediately prior to images being shown – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 3 News Special entitled “Let Us Spray” was broadcast at 7pm on 23 October 2006. The programme discussed some of the issues surrounding the manufacture of chemicals – particularly 2,4,5T – at the Dow Chemical plant in Paritutu....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-002633 PDF78. 95 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand – Stake Out: Models Exposed – hidden camera footage of magazine editor photographing models in his bedroom and in an apartment – allegations in the programme that he was not honest about how the models’ photographs would be used – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principles (i), (iii) and (vi) relevant – no private facts revealed therefore privacy principle (i) not breached – broadcast of hidden camera footage was in breach of privacy principle (iii) – no public interest – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $3,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $393....