Search

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 1989Shortland Street – contained a scene in which a character dreamed about a sexual encounter – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was classified PGR – no nudity – broadcaster was mindful of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Shortland Street, broadcast at 7pm on 31 May 2007, a scene showed two of the main characters, Maia and Mark, involved in a sexual encounter. The scene contained head-and-shoulder shots of both characters apparently having sex. The scene ended eight seconds later with the character Maia waking up and realising that the sexual encounter with Mark was just a dream....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a sex scene in Nip/Tuck in which one of the lead characters had sex with a patient after asking her to place a paper bag over her head was offensive, and should not have been shown at 10pm during the school holidays. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the sex scene was relatively discreet, and had showed a side view with no nudity. The broadcaster noted that Nip/Tuckwas rated Adults Only and had been restricted to a 9. 30pm showing because it contained a greater degree of sexual activity, potentially offensive language and realistic violence. The broadcaster argued that 9. 30pm was adults only time even during the school holidays. The Authority’s DecisionThe Authority said the scene was important to the storyline as it illustrated the central character's decline into sexual dysfunction....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of bare breasts and buttocks, and brief frontal shots of two naked women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of naked women not sexualised or intended to titillate – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – programme was appropriately classified PGR – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 August 2007, contained video footage of a number of women featuring bare breasts, buttocks and two brief full frontal shots of naked women....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Go Show – “George” lit a match and threw it in a rubbish bin – subsequent episodes showed the safe thing to do – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme The Go Show, broadcast on TV2 at 3pm on Wednesday 19 September 2007, featured a segment about George, an animated character who “sometimes. . . forgets how to keep safe”. The presenter introduced the segment as follows: Kia ora, how are you? I was just about to see what George is up to, would you like to join me?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Benidorm – showed a man being slapped in the face by two different women – allegedly in breach of law and order, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence was slapstick humour – broadcaster exercised care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for three comedy programmes Bonkers, Benidorm and The Sunshine Girls was broadcast on TV One at 12. 27pm on Thursday 18 October 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about rescue helicopter trip to Raoul Island following volcanic eruption – one DOC worker missing – member of rescue team commented that supplies included a body bag – complaint that reference to body bag was hurtful to missing worker’s family and item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – news item dealt with reality of situation – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The organisation of a rescue team to fly to Raoul Island to search for a missing Department of Conservation staff member, following a volcanic eruption, was dealt with in an item on One News broadcast on 17 March 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm. The logistics of the helicopter flight were covered as was previous volcanic activity on the island....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about former foster parents who had pleaded guilty to smacking a foster child on the hand with a wooden spoon – had originally faced a number of other abuse charges – CYFS removed two children from their care and said they were no longer suitable foster parents – interviews with former foster parents and CYFS representative – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance because it dealt with the actions of government department charged with the care of vulnerable children – TVNZ not required to detail nature of more serious allegations – not required to give further information about CYFS’ standard processes – item omitted critical information about evidential interviews of children – left viewers without a clear understanding of the reasons behind CYFS’ actions – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item…...

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 1989One News – item about the 211 Helpline – said Opposition MPs were questioning whether service was too expensive and duplicated the service run by the Citizens Advice Bureau – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed – item did not need to include details about what the 211 service might cost if rolled out nationally – majority considers item should have explained that 211 service was operating more extensive hours than the CAB – majority uphold Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under Standard 4 Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On TV One at 6pm on 23 May 2006, an item on One News discussed the 211 Helpline, a community helpline run by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – one host made anti-Australian and anti-French remarks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory to the French. FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – denigration of French was essence of complaint – subsumed under Standard 6Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Breakfast is a news and magazine programme broadcast each weekday on TV One between 7. 00–9. 00am. On 17 July 2006, the hosts were involved in a light-hearted discussion about the marketing of New Zealand and lower-priced Chilean wine in some stores in Australia, when one of the hosts asked viewers: “Don’t you just hate Australians? ” He said that he did so, and added: “It used to be the French”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict of interest and declined to take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about proposed Private Member’s Bill – said “a National MP’s plan to give more young people a chance of a job looks doomed to fail” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not leave the impression that the bill was a positive thing – focused on the fact that the bill looked set to fail – appropriate range of significant perspectives presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – introduction did not state as a fact that the bill would give young people more jobs – only stated that this was “a National MP’s plan” – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – item reported that a group described as Te Aukiwa Farm shareholders were evicting farm hands employed by the Office of Treaty Settlements and had requested police assistance – broadcaster upheld complaint that item was inaccurate – apologised to complainant and offered on-air apology and correction – complainant dissatisfied with the offer Findings Action taken – sufficient – broadcaster nevertheless encouraged to carry out the action it had undertaken – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An ongoing dispute about ownership of the farm block, Te Aukiwa Farm (Stoney Creek Station) 12km south of Mangonui, was dealt with on an item on Te Karere, broadcast on TV One at 4. 45pm on 15 September 2006, and repeated at 6. 10am on 16 September....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about fathers frustrated with the Family Court system – included interview with father who had been involved in custody dispute – identified his eight-year-old daughter – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, in breach of daughter’s privacy and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts about child – not in child’s best interests – no public interest in disclosing facts – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on controversial issue under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and guideline 9i – child unnecessarily identified and exploited – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 13(1)(d) – payment to JB for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $3,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500 This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....