Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on an incident at Fairfield College in which a group of teenage girls were admitted to hospital after taking drugs – included summary of problems previously experienced at Fairfield College – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – in any event, alternative viewpoints were presented and representatives from Fairfield College were invited to appear on the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate and did not create a misleading impression about the problems faced at Fairfield College – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Fairfield College was provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment and its response was adequately conveyed in the broadcast – Fairfield College was treated fairly – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Item on Close Up looking at the nudist lifestyle – reporter visited a nudist camp – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item not harmful to children – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Close Up on TV One at 7pm on 1 February 2005 used the occasion of the “nude Olympics” to look into the nudist lifestyle....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in standard cosmetics – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 12 October 2010, interviewed a woman who was launching a new “eco-glam” cosmetics brand made from natural ingredients, in New Zealand. The presenter introduced the item as follows: These days we’re bombarded with the organic message and all the costs that go with it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item featuring comedian Leigh Hart reviewing the election campaign the night before the general election was to be held – Mr Hart used a whiteboard which occasionally displayed the name of then Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a light-hearted review of the election campaign – it did not purport to be a serious or balanced discussion of a controversial issue – appearance and disappearance of Mr Goff’s name on the whiteboard did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – in any case the item discussed a number of politicians and included comment from them – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought had been treated unfairly – individuals taking part or referred to in the…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two items about the disappearance of a six-year-old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies in either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – 5 December broadcast not unfair to mother of six-year-old boy – complainant did not specify any person in the 20 December broadcast who was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about homeopathy sceptics – included comment from sceptics, a homeopathy client, a practitioner and New Zealand Council of Homeopaths – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – three interviewees offered views in favour of homeopathy – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Wednesday 10 February 2010, featured an experiment conducted by the New Zealand Sceptics Society in which they tried to overdose on homeopathic remedies. They reached the conclusion that the remedies were essentially water containing extremely diluted substances....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – report on the sale of horse meat for human consumption that had been processed as pet food – included undercover investigation – reporter shown speaking with the owner of pet food factory allegedly supplying horse meat – reporter told to leave the property but continued to ask questions – allegedly in breach of law and order Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – reporter acted in a professional and appropriate manner – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – investigated high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand – interviewed two girls who unexpectedly fell pregnant, one of whom chose to have an abortion – presenter conducted studio interview with an “expert in youth sexual health” – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed why teenage pregnancy rate was so high in New Zealand, not the merits of abortion – viewers would have been aware of alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 28 October 2010, considered high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand. The presenter stated in the introduction, “The issue is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on vandalism at Horowhenua Rowing Club – included footage of the complainant verbally abusing a kayaker, and interview with complainant – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item suggested that the complainant may have been responsible for the vandalism – however, the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut that suggestion and the reporter made it clear that no one had been charged for the vandalism – the complainant explained his behaviour as depicted in the footage – use of the term “uncle” to link the complainant and a young rower would not have changed viewers’ impression of the complainant or the situation – reference to assault conviction was correct at the time of broadcast – overall, complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term “uncle”…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement – profiled an ex-member, X, who claimed that she made substantial donations to the church – included hidden camera footage of church service – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – X was identifiable and item disclosed private facts about her – however, X was a willing participant and there is insufficient evidence to show she withdrew her consent to the broadcast – item did not breach X’s privacy – Bishop and Pastor were identifiable in hidden camera footage but did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public –…...

An application for leave to appeal this decision was refused by the High Court: CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386 PDF59....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on police corruption – presenter interviewed Police Association President, former police officer and a defence lawyer – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – interviewees given sufficient opportunity to comment on the issue and present their perspectives – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints on the topic – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Tuesday 19 October 2010, reported on allegations of police corruption in an historical murder case. The presenter conducted a live studio interview with a former police officer who had been involved in the case, and a defence lawyer, who said that an investigation into current police corruption was required....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....