Search Rapua

Tapu Misa 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 1989Close Up – item about two young people training for the priesthood at a seminary on Ponsonby Road – reporter used phrases “big boss” and “big guy” when referring to God and said “helluva” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 1989Close Up – item about a 10-year-old child who had taken his mother’s car for a joyride – child interviewed while sitting in the driver’s seat – showed child sitting in the driver’s seat of the car alone and rolling down the driveway at his house – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests Findings Standards 2 (law and order) and 9 (children’s interests) – item did not encourage adult target audience to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise illegal behaviour – clearly illustrated the boy’s actions were dangerous and illegal – 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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – language in interview with chef Gordon Ramsay – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching unsupervised – Gordon Ramsay famous for use of bad language so not unexpected – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Monday 23 June 2008, the programme’s host interviewed Gordon Ramsay, a well-known and hot-tempered chef. During the interview, the host asked him, “So no swearing at home then? ” Mr Ramsay replied that although he and his family did not swear at home, he could not stop his children hearing swear words at school in the playground, and his eight-year-old son had recently been taught the word “wanker” by his schoolmates....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – 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 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – 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 1989Close Up – viewers’ poll questioning whether the New Zealand Government should have apologised to India for Paul Henry’s controversial remarks – included edited footage from a debate on an Indian television network – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – editing of the Indian programme was not misleading – excerpt included comments both for and against Mr Henry – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 8 October 2010, included a poll asking viewers whether they agreed with the New Zealand Government’s apology over Breakfast presenter Paul Henry’s recent controversial remarks....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item profiled the complainant, Donald McDonald – introduction referred to some of his previous complaints including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not suggest that all or most of his complaints were unfounded but that Mr McDonald complained “too often about too little” – provided context to complaints and complainant put forward his own perspective – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of fairness This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on the experience and fears of one woman dealing with her mentally-ill ex-husband – woman described her ex-husband as dangerous – dealt with failures of the mental health system – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – woman gave her opinions about her husband, did not make statements of fact about people with bipolar disorder in general – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, people with bipolar disorder or mental illness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reference to the “Labour Government” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme informationFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld Standard 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast an item on Close Up on 21 July 2005 at 7pm. During the course of a political interview, the presenter used the term “Labour Government” to refer to the Government. Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the term “Labour Government” was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme information. She noted that the government was made up of a Labour-Progressive Coalition....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a church’s campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word – “Jesus” and “Christ” repeated a number of times as examples of the language complained about – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – used as an expression of dismay and surprise – accepted colloquial use – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed Standard 6 (fairness) – Pastor Driscoll treated fairly in the item – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up at 7pm on TV One on 12 October 2005 reported that the Rangiora New Life Church had launched a campaign to stop the use of “Jesus” as a swear word....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item featuring comedian Leigh Hart reviewing the election campaign the night before the general election was to be held – Mr Hart used a whiteboard which occasionally displayed the name of then Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a light-hearted review of the election campaign – it did not purport to be a serious or balanced discussion of a controversial issue – appearance and disappearance of Mr Goff’s name on the whiteboard did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – in any case the item discussed a number of politicians and included comment from them – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought had been treated unfairly – individuals taking part or referred to in the…...