Search

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp on Valentine’s Day reported on a woman who had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item glamorised theft and was unfair to the man. It was clear from the item that the woman had given the man ample opportunity to retrieve the sunglasses, and he was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgramingIntroduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp, broadcast on 14 February 2014, included an ‘anti-Valentine’s Day’ story where a woman had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’....

Complaint One News – interview with Chief Ombudsman about tax-payer funded sex-change operation where health bureaucracy acted unfairly – incorrect impression portrayed of Ombudsman’s decision, contrary to agreement before interview – field tape sought to assist preparation of complaint OrderOrder made to supply tape to Authority – section 12 Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION The Background An item on One News on 23 November 2000 reported on the case of Joanne Procter who was seeking a taxpayer-funded sex change operation. Her application had been approved by doctors at Waikato Hospital, but that decision had been overruled by the Health Funding Authority. She had taken her case to the Ombudsman, and the Chief Ombudsman ruled that she had been treated unfairly by the health bureaucracy. A brief comment from the Chief Ombudsman was included in the item....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on Maritime New Zealand’s lifejacket awareness campaign and featured footage of a female boatie, QA, at the Takapuna Beach boat ramp. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that showing her in the item breached her privacy, and that her comment to the reporter was taken out of context which was inaccurate and unfair. Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on Maritime New Zealand’s lifejacket awareness campaign, in light of six drownings in the first week of summer. Introducing the item, the presenter stated, ‘[Our reporter] found Auckland boaties were complacent about the dangers’. In a pre-recorded item, the reporter said, ‘We’ve been at Takapuna boat ramp for just 15 minutes, and out of three boats, six of eight people on board weren’t wearing lifejackets’....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eyewitness: The Danielle Cable Story – movie contained coarse language including the word “fuck” – programme preceded by a warning for graphic violence, but not for coarse language – broadcaster agreed that the movie should have included a specific warning for coarse language – stated that it had instituted changes to ensure warnings were provided where appropriate – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – adequate explanation of why breach occurred given to complainant – action taken by the broadcaster was appropriate and sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Eyewitness: The Danielle Cable Story was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 27 September 2009. The movie contained coarse language which included the phrases “fuck off” and “fucking idiot”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York – news correspondent reported that the New Zealand delegation had walked out of the meeting during a speech given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – correspondent made remarks about the contents of Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – correspondent’s comments about the reasons for the walkout accurately reflected the situation – correspondent’s “mindless hate” comment was clearly opinion – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ahmadinejad is a controversial political figure – robust criticism should be expected – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about large-scale animal neglect on a farm owned by one of New Zealand’s largest dairy producers – included footage of the complainant – allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled into believing the complainant was involved with animal cruelty on the farm – item accurate on material points of fact – majority – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – parts of the item borderline, but fair overall – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – complainant’s behaviour contributed to the way in which she was portrayed – majority – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

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 198920/20 – item discussed Marc Ellis’s promotional stunt for his new business which involved discharging explosives on Rangitoto Island – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – not clear from the item that the stunt amounted to criminal activity – item did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify which individuals or organisations were treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 20/20, entitled “Guerrilla Marc[eting]”, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Thursday 15 November 2007, discussed the first major guerrilla marketing stunt that had taken place in New Zealand....

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 1989Rome – two episodes contained offensive language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was gratuitous and could have been edited without affecting the storyline – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Two episodes of the historical drama Rome were broadcast on TV One at 10. 25pm on 13 January and at 11. 10pm on 3 February 2008. The 13 January episode contained the following lines: Caesar would’ve fucked Medusa if she’d had a crown. Nice manners, for a whore. Your son will eat shit and die before I make him legal. [I swear] on Juno’s cunt. I am a son of Hades! I fuck Concord in her arse! You can tell your lawyer to shove a taper up his arse and set himself alight....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters had several light-hearted discussions about the Pope – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – presenters did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenters’ comments distinguishable from points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not denigrate the Pope or Catholics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7am on Tuesday 26 February 2008, the presenters, Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell, and the newsreader, Peter Williams, had a jovial discussion about the current Pope and what he had been doing recently....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at a couple running the One World Foundation who had been banned from Samoa because of allegations regarding the legitimacy of their work – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainants were treated fairly – chosen interview excerpts fairly represented the complainants’ position – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 March 2008, reported that “a New Zealand-based couple’s been banned from Samoa for life after being accused of taking freebies in the name of charity”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – scene involved sexual encounter between two characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual activity was unambiguous – inappropriate for broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 9 No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Shortland Street, broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on Wednesday 30 April 2008, included a scene in which two male characters, Gerald and Lindsay, were involved in a sexual encounter. Gerald and Lindsay were shown undressing and kissing; Gerald was in his underwear and Lindsay was shirtless, but still wearing his trousers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Scrubs – storyline involving a patient who had taken erectile dysfunction pills – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – storyline was handled in a discreet and inexplicit manner – acceptable within PGR programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Scrubs, a comedy programme following the lives of staff at a fictional hospital, was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Wednesday 21 May 2008. One of three storylines in the episode followed a doctor, Elliot, as she treated a man who had a persistent erection after taking erectile dysfunction pills. [2] The storyline was introduced when Elliot addressed a patient in the waiting room, asking “what seems to be the problem?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men promo – language of characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour was self-deprecating and in tone of pantomime or slapstick comedy – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo acceptable during PGR programme – correctly classified – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – content of promo did not warrant an AO restriction – not likely to have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the comedy programme Two and a Half Men was broadcast on TV2 at approximately 7. 53pm on Sunday 4 May 2008 during an episode of Ugly Betty (PGR)....