Search Rapua

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2010-485-002008 PDF3....

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(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 19893 News – item on Government’s spending review to assist with the cost of the Christchurch earthquake – showed footage of students helping with the clean-up and stated that “Canterbury students have been out on the streets cleaning up Christchurch, but today they weren’t being thanked, they were being targeted by the Finance Minister” – showed Finance Minister stating that the Government was not “ruling anything in or out” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement that students were being “targeted” amounted to political commentary – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr English is a political figure – item clearly portrayed his position on interest-free student loans – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on bullying incident at Ruawai College, told from the perspective of the victim’s mother – victim’s mother expressed frustration at the school because she was not informed of the incident until a couple of days after it occurred – contained repeated footage of the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not create an unfairly negative impression of the school and staff members – school was provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and the Principal adequately presented the school’s position – item did not create an unfair impression about the timing or duration of the incident – reference to letter was not unfair – footage of police was due to an oversight – school and staff members treated fairly and overall…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sports Tonight – presenter referred to the English netball team as “Poms” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term was affectionate slang rather than abusive – did not carry level of invective necessary to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Sports Tonight, broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 21 October 2009, the presenter referred to the New Zealand netball team beating “the Poms in overtime in a one-off test last week”. Complaint [2] Gary Jordan made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the term “pom” was a racial slur against English people and should not be broadcast. He considered the term to be derogatory and offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Futurama – animated cartoon contained sexual references and innuendo – allegedly in breach of children's interests and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children's interests) – episode contained sexual content that was not suitable for unsupervised child viewers and so incorrectly classified G – should have been classified PGR – broadcaster did not adequately consider children's interests when incorrectly classifying the episode and screening it in G time – upheld under both standards No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Futurama, an animated cartoon series, contained sexual references and innuendo. The episode was classified G (General) and screened on FOUR at 6. 30pm on Friday 31 May 2013....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 What’s Really In Our Food? – included a human experiment to test the effects of Omega 3 on attention span in young boys – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – experiment was clearly intended to be light-hearted and entertaining and did not purport to be scientifically rigorous or reliable – conclusions drawn from the experiment were very vague and qualified by words such as “could’ and “may” – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of What’s Really In Our Food? , a weekly television series investigating different food groups, and exploring the potential health benefits and/or risks associated with those foods, contained a human experiment to test the effects of Omega 3 on attention span in young boys....

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 1989Campbell Live – item about an Auckland all-Chinese club rugby team – showed footage of the team training and playing their first club game – players were shown drinking beer after the game – brand of beer visible – allegedly in breach of liquor promotion standard Findings Standard 11 (liquor promotion) – liquor promotion was socially responsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Wednesday 26 March 2009, reported on an all-Chinese club rugby team from Auckland. The team’s coach was interviewed and the team was shown training and playing their first rugby match. Just before their match started, the opposition’s coach was show telling his players, "Let’s do it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about a man convicted of defrauding ACC who later successfully appealed to the Supreme Court – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item focused on one man and his successful appeal to the Supreme Court – touched on criticisms of ACC’s conduct which could be controversial and of public importance – broadcast statement from ACC addressing criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item omitted information that may have been useful – but did not contain any inaccuracies which amounted to a breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 12 June 2009, featured a man who had been convicted of defrauding ACC, and later won an appeal to the Supreme Court....

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(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about life and death of Antonie Dixon – showed death certificate – contained name of paramedic who responded to medical emergency – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – paramedic’s name and involvement in Mr Dixon’s case not private facts – death certificate is a public document – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 2 March 2009, discussed the life and death of Antonie Dixon, who was convicted of several charges including murder, and later found dead in his cell at an Auckland prison. While the reporter and Mr Dixon’s sister discussed his death, Mr Dixon’s death certificate was shown on screen....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...