Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Sports Tonight – words “tough” and “disconnect” allegedly used by presenters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and privacy Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order) and 3 (privacy) – adequate response from broadcaster – use of the words did not threaten broadcasting standards in any way – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Friday 25 September 2009. Sports Tonight was broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 30 September 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1C)(c)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item looked at the business practices of a private chiropractic practice called The Spinal Health Foundation and its resident chiropractor, Dr Sean Parker – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not imply that Dr Parker was offering personal loans to patients or that pre-pay arrangements were unethical – statement relating to possible breaches of ethics was sufficiently qualified – not upheld – decline to determine point relating to changing of paperwork under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standard 6 (fairness) – questions asked of Dr Parker were generic – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – broadcaster treated Dr Parker fairly – 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 reported on landslip affecting several homes in Bucklands Beach – stated that one house had been bought just five weeks prior to landslip through Trinity Real Estate, which was in liquidation, and that a LIM report was not obtained – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Trinity Real Estate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Forgetting Sarah Marshall– contained three brief shots of a naked man with his genitals visible at approximately 8. 35pm – use of words “fuck” and “fucking” at about 8. 40pm – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – nudity was fleeting and non-sexualised – expletives were incidental and used colloquially rather than abusively – content did not amount to “strong adult material” broadcast too soon after the AO watershed – movie was classified AO and broadcast outside children’s viewing times – warning for nudity and language allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Forgetting Sarah Marshall was broadcast on TV3 at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – investigated one couple’s practice of grazing cattle along the banks of the Pahaoa River in the Wairarapa – interviewed concerned neighbour, environmental scientist, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and spokesman for Federated Farmers – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – story focused on one couple – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the Riddells were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story – reporter’s approach unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $1,670 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 4 February 2009, the host introduced a story, saying: Let’s. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – interview with one of the "medal thieves" – viewers were told a false name was used – caption said it was an actor's voice – figure shown in interview was in fact an actor – allegedly misleading and in breach of programme information standard Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers were misled into thinking they were seeing the actual interview – broadcaster did not take sufficient steps to correct the mistake for its viewers in the same medium – upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 5 Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item looked at a New Zealand based animal research testing facility – included interviews with people who were pro-animal use and people who were anti-animal use – included discussions on the type of animals being used, whether animal testing was necessary, alternatives and research facilities – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – to the extent that the item touched on a controversial issue of public importance it provided an adequate overview of significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no misleading or inaccurate statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – participants were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on John Key’s visit to Greymouth – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – complainant mistaken about contents of item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 24 October 2008, was introduced as follows: [Labour is] poised to get back in Government, the head of a coalition of parties, and that’s a vision [leader of the National Party, John Key] describes as "a five-headed monster of the left", and one he hopes voters will flee from. Well, political editor Duncan Garner has travelled with Key to the West Coast today. . . [2] Mr Garner reported that "John Key's comments today do come as a direct result of that poll last night. . . "....

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(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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989New Zealand’s Next Top Model – modelling competition – one judge was shown wearing military medals – allegedly in breach of law and order standard Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – wearing of the medals was passive and incidental to the programme – did not actively draw attention to them such that the programme could be said to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of New Zealand's Next Top Model was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 13 March 2009. Thirty-three young women had been chosen from auditions around New Zealand to compete in the semi-finals in Queenstown, to become "New Zealand’s Next Top Model"....

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 19893 News – item reported on the Conservative Party leader and apparent party practices – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item was a legitimate and straightforward news report – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on 7 May 2012 on TV3, was introduced by the newsreader as follows: Colin Craig’s Conservative Party has a distinctly Christian streak and so does his workplace. 3 News has learned it includes weekly prayers often led by him. Craig says it’s something other employers should adopt, just like Friday night drinks....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item on Māori TV’s bid for the free-to-air broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup – included satirical sketch about what Māori TV’s coverage would look like – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – legitimate satire – lacked necessary invective to cross threshold for denigration of Māori as a section of the community – Māori TV not a section of the community – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Māori TV treated fairly – Pita Shaples and Julian Wilcox treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item was satire – did not “discuss” a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did…...