Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six cafés in Auckland – stated that food sample from Café Cézanne had tested positive for faecal coliforms which “could make you very sick” – sample had been incorrectly labelled and it was later discovered that it did not come from Café Cézanne – in the meantime broadcaster broadcast an apology (in following episode) that did not exclude possibility that sample came from Café Cézanne – both programmes allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – serious allegation that Café Cézanne’s food was contaminated with faecal coliforms was broadcast without verifying or checking results – sample did not come from Café Cézanne – apology was also inaccurate and inadequate to rectify the breach – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not give the complainants a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond because they were not…...

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 – statement about 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 30 September 2008 episode, broadcast at 7....

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 19893 News – reported on parole of a man who was jailed in relation to the so-called “Urewera anti-terror raids” – newsreader said men were “jailed over military-style training camps” – showed photograph of Tame Iti wearing a balaclava-type headpiece and holding a gun – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – while newsreader’s statement that the men were “jailed over military-style training camps” was technically inaccurate, the position was immediately clarified when the newsreader said they were sentenced for firearms offences – photograph of Tame Iti was relevant to the subject matter and would not have misled viewers – item not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – newsreader’s introductory comment and photograph of Tame Iti did not create unfair impression that the men were terrorists – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News: Firstline – item reported on protestor at St Peter’s Square who shouted “Pope, where is Christ? ” – newsreader commented, “He’s here. His name’s Richie McCaw” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment was intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – broadcast 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. Introduction [1] An item on 3 News: Firstline, broadcast on TV3 at 8am on 24 October 2011, reported on a protester who climbed the walls surrounding St Peter’s Square and set fire to a bible....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on likely ban of guided heli-hunting on conservation land – contained file footage of commercial deer recovery – footage allegedly inaccurate, misleading and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – footage of commercial hunting would have misled viewers to believe that it applied directly to the story – footage should have been explained to ensure that viewers understood it related to commercial hunting which is a completely different industry to heli-hunting – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item did not mislead – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – commercial hunting industry was not an “organisation” for the purposes of the standard – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera trial of video game retailers – actors aged 16, 14 and 12 years attempted to buy R18 video game – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers saw the hidden camera footage – no evidence to suggest item was inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 29 June 2010, the presenter summarised the results of a hidden camera trial in which actors aged 16, 14 and 12 years attempted to buy a video game which had an R18 classification. A number of retailers refused sale without proof of age, while others proceeded with the sale and swiped the actors’ eftpos cards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – male character injected with “gay gene” – went to “Straight Camp” where he was encouraged to drink, play full contact football, and “find loose women to have sex with” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and liquor standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – scene had clear humorous and satirical intent – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – scene was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld Standard 11 (liquor) – broadcast did not amount to “liquor promotion” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items reported on controversial comments made by the CE of the EMA that some female workers are less productive because they take sick leave when they are menstruating – interviewed CE and portion of the interview broadcast – included sarcastic comments and caricature of CE singing – panel discussed comments – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview footage provided a fair summary of Mr Thompson’s character and conduct – was not necessary in the interests of fairness to broadcast the full interview – items not unfair to Mr Thompson, given his position as a public figure and that the comments reported on were made during a political discussion in the public arena – not upheld by majority Standard 5 (accuracy) – items accurately reflected Mr Thompson’s behaviour in…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Underbelly: Razor – sex scene broadcast at 8. 42pm – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sex scene amounted to “strong adult material” broadcast close to the Adults Only watershed – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Underbelly: Razor was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 30 November 2011. At 8. 42pm, a sex scene was shown, in which a woman was on top of a man in bed. Her breasts were briefly visible, and she could be heard moaning. [2] The episode was preceded by the following visual and verbal warning: This programme is rated Adults Only and is recommended for a mature audience....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News– item on Russian supermodels – reported on dangers of sexual exploitation in the modelling industry – comment about thirteen-year-old girl being paid to have sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – statement matter-of-fact and relevant to the subject matter – not salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at approximately 6. 22pm on 5 July 2010, reported on the worldwide success of Russian supermodels and the dangers of sexual exploitation in the modelling industry....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Family Guy – cartoon comedy – scene implied killing of cat with a razor – character was continuously splattered with blood as he sliced the cat off-screen and cat squealed – character stated, “. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bro’ Town – characters talked about young boy being a “bastard” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme encouraged acceptance of children of single parent families rather than encouraging discrimination against them – legitimate humour and satire – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “bastard” was not used as a swear word – material was acceptable for a PGR-rated comedy programme at 7. 30pm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Bro’ Town, an animated comedy chronicling the misadventures of five Auckland teenagers growing up in the imaginary suburb of Morningside, was broadcast on C4 at 7. 30pm on Monday 15 March 2010. Some of the characters were shown talking in a backyard....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....