Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Embarrassing Bodies – episode focusing on vaginas broadcast at 8. 30pm – close-up shots of women’s vaginas and surgical operations – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme had educational value – clear pre-broadcast warning for nudity and medical scenes – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and preceded by adequate warning – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included footage of rugby player mouthing the words “fucking bullshit” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language inaudible which reduced its potential to offend – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – language would have bypassed most children as they would have to have been actively watching to understand what was said – news not targeted at, nor likely to appeal to, children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on TV One on 28 April 2012, reported on the fate of the Auckland Blues rugby team following their eighth successive loss....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included Colmar Brunton poll results on the percentage of party votes for major political parties – results did not take account of “undecided voters” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – omission of undecided voters not material given the focus and context of the item which was the decline in the level of support for the National Party – potential harm in terms of impact on voter participation was not significant given the length of time until next general election – viewers would not have been misled in any material respect – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989MasterChef New Zealand – contestants used the words “crapping” and “pissed off” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was low-level and would not have offended most viewers in the context of a PGR programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the final episode of MasterChef New Zealand, references to “crapping myself” and “crapping yourself” were made by one of the contestants and one of the judges, and another contestant said she was “pissed off with [herself]” for forgetting important ingredients. The episode was broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 June 2012. [2] Janet Lockyer made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the language was offensive and unacceptable....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item allegedly contained comments that were inconsistent with BBC report – allegedly in breach of accuracy standardFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster unable to locate comments specified by the complainant – Authority therefore unable to assess broadcasting standards against those comments – Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] J M Baxter made a formal complaint to TVNZ about an item broadcast on One News at 6pm on 22 September 2012. He asserted that the item was inconsistent with a BBC report which quoted the United States Attorney General saying that New Zealand had opened its ports to US war ships....

An application for leave to appeal this decision was refused by the High Court: CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386 PDF59....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Last Laugh – practical joke played on 17-year-old woman – filmed inside her bedroom with her family’s consent – allegedly a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of footage filmed inside complainant’s bedroom was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – no public interest in broadcast of footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to NM for breach of privacy $500. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the entertainment programme The Last Laugh was broadcast on TV2 at 11. 30pm on 5 December 2006. The series relied on family and friends to nominate practical jokers who would then become the subject of a practical joke....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eyes Wide Shut – movie contained group sex scenes, coarse language, violence and drug use – allegedly in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – film should have been classified AO 9. 30pm – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The movie Eyes Wide Shut was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Saturday 1 March 2008. The film was about Bill and Alice Harford, a wealthy professional couple living in Manhattan. [2] The movie began with Bill and Alice attending a Christmas party thrown by a wealthy attorney named Victor Ziegler. During the scene, which was broadcast at approximately 8. 43pm, Bill was called into Ziegler's private bathroom....

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item on businessman Doug Myers – reported that court battle for control of The Campbell & Ehrenfried Company was settled in Mr Myers’ favour – TVNZ acknowledged error and broadcast correction during subsequent Sunday programme – complainant dissatisfied with the broadcast correction Findings Action taken sufficient to correct the original inaccuracy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on the Sunday programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 25 March 2007 examined the profile of businessman and brewery magnate, Doug Myers. The report canvassed some of Mr Myers’ history, including when his father made him the executive director of The Campbell & Ehrenfried Company, and said that Mr Myers: …set about shaking up the New Zealand liquor business....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported allegations that during his time as a teacher, Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope was “sleazy” and made female students stand outside in their nighties as punishment at a school camp – included comments from Mr Benson-Pope – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue of public importance whether Mr Benson-Pope had acted inappropriately towards female students during his time as a teacher – significant perspectives were aired during period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies or misleading impressions – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – door-stepping interview not unfair – reporter entitled to approach Cabinet Minister – overall Mr Benson-Pope treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – footage from British reality series Sex Inspectors included a couple engaged in various sexual acts – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification and programme information standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – warning sufficient – not upheld Standards 2–6 and 8 – complaint based on mistake – not relevant – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 14 December 2004 the presenter of Eating Media Lunch on TV2 introduced a segment which was to feature in the following episode. Brief footage from a British reality series called Sex Inspectors was shown, including a couple engaged in various sexual acts....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....