Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – episode contained violent scenes – female character struck gang leader on the head with a hammer – later kicked him repeatedly as he was tied up on the ground – allegedly in breach of violence and programme classification standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – violence was graphic and realistic – deserved higher classification – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence went beyond PGR classification – warning inadequate – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care – upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Shortland Street was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on Tuesday 20 January 2009. It began with a brief recap of violence that had taken place in the previous episode, continuing a long-running storyline concerning gang crime....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about New Zealand’s dog breeds and breeders’ ethics regarding inbreeding – reporter visited one breeder at her home – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to comment – she should have been informed that the programme would broadcast specific allegations against her – reporter’s approach was unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 29 March 2009, investigated the state of New Zealand’s pedigree dog breeds and breeding ethics in response to an earlier programme which looked at the health of Britain’s purebred dogs. [2] Included in the item was comment from a dog-owner, Chris, who owned a bulldog....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on two National MPs and whether their business links in India were in conflict with their public roles in New Zealand – included footage of street scenes in India – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage did not contain any material which threatened standards of good taste and decency – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 30 March 2009, reported that two National MPs were facing questions about whether their business links in India were in conflict with their public roles in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Back Benches – Mt Albert by-election special – programme featured candidates from Labour, National, Green, ACT and United Future – candidates campaigned for votes and addressed various issues facing the electorate – allegedly in breach of balance and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – programme discussed controversial issues of public importance – criteria used by broadcaster to select participants was justifiable – a variety of significant viewpoints was presented – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – ALCP did not take part and was not referred to – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Back Benches was broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 9pm on Friday 10 June 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item covered the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court explaining how his relationship with Ms Elliott began – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of relationship were not sufficiently explicit to require a warning – high degree of public interest – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – deceased person not an “individual” for the purposes of Broadcasting Act 1989 – privacy standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 9 July 2009, covered the day’s events at the trial of Clayton Weatherston, who was accused of murdering Sophie Elliott....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two “coming up” promos and opening segment of One News reported that an actor had been “gunned down” by police – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term "gunned down" not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – police representative was given opportunity to explain why the shooting occurred – police treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A “coming up” promo for One News was broadcast at 5. 41pm on Thursday 27 July 2009. The promo included a brief report which stated: Coming up on tonight’s One News, an actor is gunned down by police in a suburban Auckland street. [2] A second promo for the news was broadcast at 5....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – contained interview with a psychologist who discussed different personality types in the workplace – presenter used the term “schizos” before and during the interview – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked necessary invective to reach threshold – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any person or organisation he felt had been treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 22 September 2009, contained an interview with psychologist and employment relations expert Dr Giles Burch. [2] At 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Criminal Minds – two versions of the promo were broadcast – both versions referred to a “prolific serial killer” and showed a person’s throat being drawn on with a blue pen – one referred to the serial killer removing the limbs of his victims while they were alive and showed a body part lying in the desert – allegedly in breach of standards of programme classification, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promos contained adult themes – both versions were deserving of a higher classification – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promos incorrectly classified and contained gruesome adult themes – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling against advertisement for Charlie’s Soda – studio discussion among four men about whether the decision was out of step with society and demonstrated a double standard between advertising and television programmes – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – discussion was confined to one advertisement – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 31 January 2008, discussed the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement for Charlie’s Soda was in breach of advertising standards. According to the item, the ASA ruled that the advertisement breached a standard which required advertisements not to use sexual content to promote an unrelated product....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News ­– item on Big Wednesday Lotto draw – presenter stated that ticket holders had a one in 2. 7 million chance of winning – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item technically inaccurate – upholding the complaint would place an unjustified limitation on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item, broadcast at 6pm on Wednesday 10 June 2009, reported on a Lotto “Big Wednesday” draw that had jackpotted to twenty million dollars. The presenter introduced the item by saying: In just over an hour, some lucky punter could be twenty million dollars richer in what would be the country’s largest ever Lotto win. Big Wednesday’s jackpotted to include twenty million dollars cash, there’s only a one in 2....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Beyond The Darklands – programme was a case study of convicted murderer William Bell based on the recollections of friends, teachers and others as well as analysis by psychologist – programme disclosed the name of the street Mr Bell used to live on with his mother – included claims Mr Bell was abused by his family as a child and worked as a prostitute – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was a case study – viewers would have realised that the interviewees and psychologist were not making statements of fact, but providing individual perceptions and analysis – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme not required to obtain comment from complainant – nature of programme – range of views and analysis provided were a fair reflection of the complainant – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy)…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds promo – featured a woman unbuttoning her shirt to reveal her bra – implied she was a prostitute who had been killing her clients – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, programme classification and children's interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) and Standard 9 (children's interests) – promo contained adult themes – not suitable for child viewers or for broadcast during the news – PGR classification incorrect – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not applicable – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the crime drama Criminal Minds was broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – segments concerning police shooting of innocent bystander – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – views of the police were put forward by interviewees and viewer feedback – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 6. 50am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Monday 26 January 2009, one of the hosts interviewed the New Zealand Police Association President, Greg O’Connor, following a fatal shooting by the Armed Offenders Squad of an innocent man the previous Friday. The host asked Mr O’Connor whether it was reasonable at this time to question the actions of the police officers involved. Mr O’Connor responded: . . . it’s an absolute tragedy and we have got nothing but sympathy for that family. . . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on the standard of care in rest homes in New Zealand – producer went undercover as a caregiver for five days in a rest home on Auckland’s North Shore – presenter and undercover producer raised a number of concerns regarding the quality of care being provided in the rest home – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – owners provided with an adequate opportunity to respond to allegations – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide significant viewpoints on the controversial issue discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – undercover producer’s opinions and impressions not statements of fact – decline to determine whether undercover producer contracted an MRSA infection from rest home – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – legitimate use of covert filming – in the public interest to broadcast the material – item treated…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about "virtually blind" producer – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's comments were light-hearted and intended to be humorous – directed at one individual rather than blind people in general – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 April 2009, the hosts apologised for a noise that had occurred in the background while the news was being read. One host explained that the noise was caused by the executive producer "who's virtually blind". The host elaborated, mimicking the producer trying to read viewers' faxes, and also making a lot of noise taking a plate to the hosts as he could not see the table....