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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item included clips in which reporter tried to obtain comment from ACT leader Don Brash, and Mr Brash refused – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item broadcast in lead-up to the general election – Mr Brash chose to refuse to comment on a subject that other party leaders had freely commented on – clips themselves were not edited – not unfair to Mr Brash – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 31 October 2011 reported that political party leaders were meeting to discuss Labour’s proposal to raise the retirement age. The reporter explained that he had tried to get comment on the issue from the then ACT Party leader Don Brash, who refused....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3rd Degree reported on a Korean man X who was ousted from his local church community for his participation in a ‘mockumentary’ about North Korea. The programme included an interview with the editor of a local Korean newspaper (one of the complainants), and attempted to interview a priest from X’s church. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the story was unfair to the interviewees and breached the newspaper editor’s privacy. The programme made genuine attempts to obtain comment from the interviewees, and they were treated fairly. The newspaper editor agreed to an interview so the broadcast did not disclose any private facts about him. The story did not discuss a controversial issue which required the presentation of alternative views; it focused on one man’s personal experiences....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – item featured a woman who ran a sanctuary for ex-battery hens – included footage of caged hens – woman described condition of hens when they arrived at her property – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item focused on the experience of one woman – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about uric acid presented as fact – inaccurate but immaterial in context of human interest story – point was that chickens were in poor condition as a result of being caged – not misleading to use footage of battery hens – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – industry not an individual or organisation taking part or referred to – complainant did not take part and was not referred to – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contained segment called “My Kid Could Draw That” – comments made about picture drawn by a child – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unnecessary for child to be identified – linked young girl to ribald adult sexual humour – exploitative – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme broadcast outside of children’s normally accepted viewing times – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme 7 Days was broadcast on TV3 at 10pm on Friday 25 September 2009. The programme involved the host questioning two three-person teams of comedians about various events which had been reported in the media during the week....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item featured interview with two members of the band Linkin Park who used coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – inclusion of the language was gratuitous and deliberately provocative – no warning given – research supports likelihood of viewers being offended – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 just before 11pm on 15 October 2007, discussed the international success of American band, Linkin Park, and included an interview with two of the band members. At the beginning of the interview, one member said “Fuck you! ” in response to the interviewer welcoming them to New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sticky TV – contained episode of Wizards of Waverly Place – involved teenage characters talking about dating and kissing as well as two characters kissing – Sticky TValso contained a segment called “What Would You Do? ” in which a panel of young teenagers gave advice about kissing – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – Sticky TV correctly classified G – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programmes addressed contemporary issues facing teens – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sticky TV was broadcast on TV3 between 3. 30pm and 5pm on Tuesday 15 June 2010. Another programme called Wizards of Waverley Place was broadcast in segments as part of Sticky TV....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reported on high profile immigration case involving Chinese millionaire William Yan – disclosed Mr Yan’s address and showed footage of Mr Yan’s business assistant in the lobby of the apartment building where Mr Yan lived – allegedly in breach of privacy standard FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Yan’s address was not disclosed for the purposes of encouraging harassment as envisaged by privacy principle 4 – no evidence that harassment resulted from the disclosure – apartment building lobby was accessible to the public so neither Mr Yan nor his business assistant had a reasonable expectation of privacy there – item did not breach the privacy of Mr Yan or his business assistant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – programme contained teaser for item in upcoming episode – teaser about a teenage boy who had committed suicide and the events leading up to his death involving two girls – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – girls not identifiable beyond those who already knew of the events – teaser did not draw any conclusions about their motives or character – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Wednesday 17 February 2010. At the end of the programme, a teaser was shown for an upcoming item that was going to be screened in the following week’s episode....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on MTV music awards – showed actor Sacha Baron Cohen as his character Bruno dressed as an angel and only wearing a harness – Bruno was lowered in front of musician Eminem who was sitting in the crowd – Bruno was suspended upside down so that his buttocks were in the musician’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – unsupervised children unlikely to watch news programmes – item did not contain material that would have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about launch of Green Party election campaign contained brief, out-of-focus background image of a person’s “butt crack” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 6 (fairness) – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 6 November 2011, reported on the launch of the Green Party’s election campaign. Green Party co-leader Russell Norman was shown addressing the attendees at the launch from a stage, and the camera panned down to focus on a baby in a pram. In the background of the shot of the baby, a person’s “butt crack” was briefly visible....

omplaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promos for The Almighty Johnsons, Sons of Anarchy and Terra Nova – broadcast during Dr Phil at approximately 1. 30pm – contained images of weapons including a knife and guns – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 9 (children’s interests), and Standard 10 (violence) – promos did not contain any AO material – promos appropriately classified PGR and screened during Dr Phil which was classified AO – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests and exercised sufficient care and discretion in dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...