Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand documentary: “What’s Really in our Food” – discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme fairly presented significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to persons or organisations taking part or referred to in the programme – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled “What’s Really in our Food” was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 13 September 2007. The programme discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on world’s first 3D erotic film, Sex and Zen – included clips from the movie – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – legitimate news story – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – film clips were effectively censored – unclassified news programme targeted at adults – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item during 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 5 May 2011, reported on the opening of the world’s first 3D erotic film, Sex and Zen. The item was introduced as follows: Thanks to Avatar, when people think of 3D films they probably conjure up the colour blue....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Home and Away – showed couple in bed – camera with recording light on was positioned at the end of the bed – footage briefly shown of the couple kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – programme’s themes more suited to PGR but visual depiction of them inexplicit and acceptable in G programme – majority – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 8 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Home and Away, an Australian soap opera with a G rating, was broadcast on TV3 at 5. 30pm on Friday 31 July 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Underbelly – programme about mafia-type gangs in Melbourne – included coarse language, nudity, drugs and violence – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Underbelly was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Sunday 13 April 2008. The programme was a drama based on the true story of Melbourne’s infamous gangland killings and events which occurred between 1995 and 2004. [2] The programme contained frequent use of coarse language including the words “fuck”, “cocksucker”, “prick”, “arsehole” and “pussy-whipped”. It also included a scene in which a man killed two other men by shooting them with a pistol....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – segment looked at an upcoming documentary called “How to Spot a Cult” – included an interview with an expert on religion and cults, Dr Dennis Green – comments made about Destiny Church and other religious groups – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not involve a “discussion” of a controversial issue of public importance as envisaged by the standard – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people and organisations referred to in the item were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on Sunrise, broadcast on TV3 at 8. 56am on Wednesday 25 November 2009, previewed an upcoming Inside New Zealand documentary called “How to Spot a Cult”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Downsize Me! - recommendations on weight loss and nutrition – allegedly inaccurate and misleading Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – "factual programme" in the sense that it reported actual events and offered general information – advice and "scare tactics" presented in personable way – general messages were to eat better, exercise regularly and improve health – viewers would have understood that most of the advice was tailored to the particular participant – however, broadcasters need to take special care when discussing medical conditions – endorsement of coconut oil misleading – one aspect upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Downsize Me! was a health, diet and exercise programme where overweight people worked for eight weeks to lose weight and reduce health risks. The Tuesday 23 September 2008 episode, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – story about former cricketer Shane Warne reportedly having an affair with Liz Hurley – referred to his past indiscretions and showed images of him with topless women, with their breasts blurred – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – images were brief, dark and indistinct – no warning required – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 13 December 2010, reported that former Australian cricketer Shane Warne was rumoured to be having an affair with model and actress Liz Hurley....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: High Time? – documentary discussed whether cannabis should be legalised in New Zealand – person said “holy fuckin’ Jesus” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – combination of “Jesus” and swear words more offensive to some people – however was not unexpected in context of documentary about cannabis preceded by clear warning for language – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was an expression of awe rather than a comment on Christian people – programme did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled “High Time?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – contained sexual content and innuendo – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – sexual content was subtle and inexplicit – nature of sexual innuendo would have gone over the heads of younger viewers – not upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldStandard 8 (responsible programming) – the episode was correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An episode of the cartoon comedy Family Guy was broadcast on FOUR at 7. 30pm on Thursday 20 October 2011....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on bullying at Massey High School – question of whether Authority has jurisdiction to accept a referral of the privacy aspect of the complaint FindingsMassey High School did not refer its complaint to the Authority within the statutory timeframe – original complaint did not constitute a direct privacy referral – Authority does not have jurisdiction to accept the complaint This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 15 November 2011, reported on bullying at Massey High School (Massey). [2] Massey made a formal complaint dated 29 November 2011, alleging that the item breached standards relating to privacy, accuracy and fairness. That complaint was addressed to the Chair of this Authority and a copy was also sent to the Chief Executive at TV3....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on the cats of Zion Wildlife Garden in Whangarei and the organisation’s desire to reverse declawing operations on some of their cats – included comments about former manager Craig Busch in relation to the decision to declaw the cats – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – zoo consultant’s comments were opinion – statement that Mr Busch convinced authorities had a reasonable basis – complainant did not provide evidence to disprove statements about inbreeding or limping tiger – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Busch invited to participate – item included a response from Mr Busch – broadcaster dealt with Mr Busch and ZWG fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Five Campbell Live items featured the complainant, Margaret Harkema, a former director of the Valley Animal Research Centre, and investigated concerns that she was using TradeMe to rehome beagles that were bred or used for testing. The Authority upheld her complaints that the programmes were unfair, misleading and breached her privacy. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, PrivacyNot Upheld: Law and OrderOrders: Section 13(1)(d) $2,000 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy; Section 16(1) $12,000 legal costs to the complainantIntroduction[1] Campbell Live carried out an investigation, spanning five separate broadcasts, into matters involving the now closed Valley Animal Research Centre (VARC), and its former director, Margaret Harkema....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on Christchurch homeowners living in the government’s red zone with regard to their replacement insurance policies – interviewed Tower Insurance customer who had been advised that his replacement insurance would cover the cost of repairing his damaged house but not its full replacement value – visited Tower’s head office – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Campbell Live exhausted all legitimate methods to obtain comment from Tower – Mr Campbell’s approach polite and non-confrontational – door-stepping used as a means of obtaining information and constructive comment – not unfair to Tower or the receptionist – reference to email a fair summary of its contents – overall Tower treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on bullying at Massey High School – contained repeated footage of girls fighting – item was not preceded by a warning – parents and students interviewed expressed dissatisfaction at how the school had handled the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – students shown in the footage were not identifiable beyond those who would have already known about the altercation – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item did not present itself as a follow-up to the previous story on bullying and was not unfair to X, his parents or Massey in this respect – impression created about fighting and bullying at Massey was not the result of unfairness but stemmed from the facts of the incident and the response of students and parents…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on the findings of an investigation into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau, and the Government’s proposed response to those findings – allegedly in breach of accuracy standardFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – this was a straightforward news report on the findings of an investigation into the legality of the agency’s actions – key finding was that the governing legislation was ambiguous and so arguably the agency did not breach it – reported that the Government’s proposed response was to amend the legislation to clarify ambiguity – item did not analyse or discuss the intentions of the governing legislation – reporter’s comments were accurate in context and would not have misled viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on a threat made against MP Sue Bradford that was published under the username GarfieldNZ on the website Twitter – news reporter tracked down the individual who owned the username – contained footage of reporter knocking on the front door of the individual’s house and talking to him about the threat – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item showed the wording of the Twitter message – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of door-stepping did not disadvantage the complainant – complainant’s response provided to viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...