Search Rapua

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 1989Californication – contained frequent coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was consistent with viewer expectations of the programme – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Californication was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Monday 18 April 2011. Californication was a black comedy about a self-obsessed novelist named Hank Moody. Between 9. 30pm and 10pm, characters used the following words and phrases: “fucking” (16 times) “fucked up” “fuck” (6 times) “bitch” “shit” (8 times) “asshole” (2 times) “shitty” (2 times) “balls” (3 times) “you smell like you just walked out of a fisting contest” “forced anal” (2 times) “motherfucker” “cock” “bullshit”....

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(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for The Graham Norton Show – promo for Christmas special showed a photograph of a couple dressed as Mary and Joseph holding a dog in swaddling clothes – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour – would not have offended most viewers in context – innocent lampooning of religious figures comes within the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – content was a light-hearted attempt at humour as opposed to a criticism of Christians – content did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for The Jono Project – contained brief silhouette image of a woman bouncing up and down apparently having sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming), and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – image was fleeting, dark and relatively indistinct – promo did not contain any AO material – promo appropriately classified PGR and screened during Dr Phil – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] At approximately 1. 30pm during Dr Phil, broadcast on TV3 on 22 and 23 September 2011, a promo for The Jono Project was shown, which contained a brief silhouette image of a woman bouncing up and down, apparently having sex....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skins – programme about a group of teenagers in Britain – showed teenagers drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and taking drugs – contained sexual material, nudity, violence and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming, children’s interests, violence and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO9....

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....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2011-485-1110 PDF1. 92 MBMary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item and follow-up item questioned “Where has all the aid money gone?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live, 3 News and The Jono Project – items included hidden camera footage of reporters wearing burqas and speaking to the complainant outside her shop – complainant refused reporters entry to her shop and questioned their style of dress – items commented on complainant’s behaviour – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – footage obtained through misrepresentation and complainant was not informed of the nature of her participation – footage not justified by the public interest – complainant should have been given an opportunity to respond to the negative portrayal of her in the programmes – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – broadcasts did not disclose any private facts – filming occurred in a public place and complainant not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – 3 News and Campbell Live…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld 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(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on shoplifting – included footage of “security expert” shoplifting from two stores – allegedly in breach of law and order and balance Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Monday 9 June 2008, featured a story on shoplifting and the effects it was having both on the business community and New Zealand consumers. [2] The presenter introduced the item by saying: Tonight. . . we look at others caught on camera, caught shoplifting. In fact. . ....

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....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on attempted rescue of surfing students being instructed by the complainant – showed confrontation between the complainant and members of the Piha Surf Lifesaving Club – reporter stated that “the first thing that [the Department of Labour] will find is that he is not even a registered surf instructor” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – accurate to say that complainant was not registered – implication was not that he had acted illegally, but that he had not demonstrated best practice – item contained clear comments from the complainant and from the school that he had not done anything wrong – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item fairly presented complainant’s response – complainant treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....