Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News segment called “The Week in Politics” – reference to Dr Don Brash (Leader of the National Party) travelling in a police convoy from Parliament to the Wellington Stadium – comment by presenter that he “could have walked, the lazy bugger eh! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – word “bugger” not in breach of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment not statement of fact – accuracy standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment called “The Week in Politics” was included in 3 News, broadcast on 23 July 2004, at around 6. 30pm....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Minister of Police had declined to be interviewed – host said that when Cabinet Ministers refused to front up and discuss serious issues, they would receive the “no-show pie” – animation showing a photograph of the Minister of Police with a cream pie being pushed into his face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Minister – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no issue of violence – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item looking at possible reasons for high crime statistics for young Māori – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not purport to cover all perspectives – discussed one part of the wider issue – period of current interest still open – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Māori community or the youths interviewed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes entitled “Māori Challenge” was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 18 April 2005. The item explored a possible link between the high rate of Māori criminal offending and the way in which male aggression may be seen as important to Māori identity, particularly through the haka....

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 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – report on a terrorist threat in America in run-up to Presidential election – presenter joked that the country was facing a nightmare other than the prospect of George W Bush being re-elected – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment clearly a joke – no breach of good taste and decency – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 3 News item broadcast on 13 July 2004 on TV3 at 6pm reported on a terrorist threat in America in the run-up to the Presidential election. The presenter (John Campbell) said: The United States is suddenly confronting the prospect of a nightmare – no, not George W [Bush] being re-elected – but the election itself having to be cancelled....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster – said that it had killed “16,000, possibly double, even treble that” – complaint that figure was inaccurate – broadcaster upheld the complaint on the basis that there was dispute about the number of deaths and the item should have reported this – broadcaster discussed the issue with newsroom staff – complainant dissatisfied with reasons for upholding decision and action takenFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – CanWest’s reasons for upholding decision were incorrect – should have upheld the complaint on the basis that the figures in the report were inaccurate, not because the position was uncertain – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about strike action at the Port of Lyttelton – showed staff who were not on strike – complainant alleged that viewers might assume that they were on strike – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – staff not identifiable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Strike action at the Port of Lyttelton was dealt with in an item broadcast on 3 News beginning at 6. 00pm on 29 March 2005. Complaint [2] The Chief Executive (Rod Grout) of Pacifica Shipping (1985) Ltd (trading as the Pacific Transport Group) complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the item breached the privacy of some Pacifica Shipping workers....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – examined differences in breast cancer treatment in Australia and New Zealand, and the funding of a drug called Herceptin – interviewed an Australian and a New Zealander with similar cancer and compared their prognoses – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster failed to present significant viewpoints on the controversial issue within the programme, and within the period of current interest – due to the presentation of the programme and the nature of the issue, the period of current interest limited to a short time after the broadcast – alternative perspectives were not presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements would have misled viewers – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Prince Philip’s birthday – host noted that the Prince had criticised a number of ethnic and social groups over the years – host mentioned the right to freedom of expression – showed a picture of Prince Philip defaced with a moustache and horns, with a speech bubble saying “I’m a dork” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – innocuous prank – raised no issue of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Prince Philip – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography – showed two men standing at a vending machine – face of the accused not shown, side profile of the other man was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – item implied complainant was defendant on child pornography charges – incorrect – seriously unfair – upheldOrderCosts to the Crown of $3000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 at 6pm on 7 March 2005 reported on the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography via the internet. The reporter said that due to a judge’s ruling, 3 News was unable to name the alleged offender....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – footage of an assault on a man charged with child abuse – described as “street justice” – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – crime was not endorsed or glamorised – “street justice” a colloquialism – broadcaster did not condone assault – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 1 April 2005 detailed the lifting of name suppression in a prominent child abuse case. The piece contained footage of an assault on the accused that had screened previously when the name suppression order was still in effect. The voiceover stated: Last week when he appeared in court it was street justice being meted out on [the accused]....

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item entitled “Fair Game” explored the question of whether fish feel pain – focussed on big game fishing – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – significant viewpoints presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate on points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to deep-sea fishermen – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 18 October 2004, was entitled “Fair Game” and explored the question of whether fish feel pain. The item centred on big game fishing and the introduction said: Bullfighting, cock fighting, bear baiting. Some cultures have delighted in prolonging the torment of animals, under the guise of some sort of noble contest....

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 and denigratoryFindingsPreliminary findings – Authority applied TVNZ v VoTE approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Authority must consider whether finding a breach of standards would impose unreasonable limitation on free speech Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors favour broadcaster – public interest does not require finding a breach of standards simply because broadcasts lampooned Catholicism – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold in light of protection given to satire in 6(g)(iii) – threshold one of vitriol or hate speech – fact that offence caused of itself insufficient to find breach of standard – programmes not realistic as complainant alleged – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – satirical programmes would only be unfair in…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting that 17-month-old girl had suffered head injuries at a Christchurch home – showed street name and number of house – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant did not identify an individual whose privacy was allegedly breached – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 26 October 2006, reported that a 17-month-old girl had been flown to Starship Hospital after she had suffered serious head injuries while visiting a Christchurch home. It said that police were investigating how the injuries had occurred, and whether they were accidental or intentional. The reporter referred to the name of the street where the home was located, and the street sign was shown....

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....