Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – programme asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed five flag options – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate on material points of fact or misleading – 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 Friday 5 February 2010, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag. The programme ran a poll to determine viewers’ preferences for a proposed flag and provided them with five different options to choose from....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with a woman who had witnessed a fatal stabbing in Auckland – presenter said “that woman told us she was off home now to have a stiff brandy – as you would do. Have two” – allegedly in breach of liquor standardFindings Standard 11 (liquor) – comment did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 28 November 2005, included an interview with a woman who had witnessed a fatal stabbing in Auckland. At the end of the item, the programme’s presenter said: That woman told us she was off home now to have a stiff brandy, as you would do. Have two....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – update on a 2005 story about a Chinese family – father had been deported and mother was fighting a deportation order – interviewed the couple’s three children – daughter was shown distressed and in tears – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster failed to use discretion and sensitivity when interviewing child about a distressing situation – child was exploited – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 14 November 2006, discussed a long-running court case involving a Chinese couple who had come to New Zealand on a working visa more than a decade ago....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on Haitian Vodou – interviewed New Zealand vodou high priest and one of his spiritual children – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – interviewee’s partner could have been identified through their relationship but no private facts disclosed in a highly offensive manner – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – points raised by the complainants were not material points of fact – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Haitian Vodou not an organisation to which the standard applies – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not carry invective necessary to encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, Haitian Vodou believers as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in mainstream cosmetics, including that most contained parabens – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee was not presented as an expert – viewers would have understood that her comments were opinion and not statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – 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 reported on death of a man who was shot while out hunting – during visual reconstruction person pointed a firearm at the camera – allegedly in breach of law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – footage of a gun pointed at the camera did not, when taken in context, encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A Close Up item reporting on the sentencing of a man convicted of shooting another man in a hunting accident, included visual reconstructions of people hunting. The reporter referred to previous hunting accidents, and a brief, out-of-focus shot of a gun pointing towards the camera was shown during a visual reconstruction of a hunting trip....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – stated that animal welfare group had gone “undercover” on a farm to investigate mistreated pigs and that it had gained access through an unlocked door – showed footage obtained by the group of sick and injured animals – allegedly in breach of law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not show the group breaking into the farm – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law by screening the footage – public interest in showing mistreatment of animals – 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 Friday 23 July, reported on new footage of pigs at a Levin farm that had been the subject of a previous TVNZ broadcast on animal welfare....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – discussed concerns that the product was defective and putting homes at risk – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – seen overall, item seriously criticised TimberSaver product – no scientific evidence provided to refute criticisms – no evidence provided of quality and suitability of product – unbalanced – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – scientist on programme not independent – conflict of interest – contrary to guideline 5e – upheld – other aspects of accuracy complaint not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – seen overall, item unfair to Osmose – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,000 Payment of costs to the Crown $2,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 1989Close Up – reported on vandalism at Horowhenua Rowing Club – included footage of the complainant verbally abusing a kayaker, and interview with complainant – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item suggested that the complainant may have been responsible for the vandalism – however, the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut that suggestion and the reporter made it clear that no one had been charged for the vandalism – the complainant explained his behaviour as depicted in the footage – use of the term “uncle” to link the complainant and a young rower would not have changed viewers’ impression of the complainant or the situation – reference to assault conviction was correct at the time of broadcast – overall, complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term “uncle”…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Muslim outrage caused by cartoons first published in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed – item concluded with satirical depiction of Jesus Christ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfair in that it encouraged the denigration of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – contrast in attitudes to freedom of speech about religious convictions is controversial issue of public importance – dealt with in balanced way in full item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – lampooning of Christians did not amount to blackening of reputation – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs not subject to classification system – warning was broadcast – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – warning included before current affairs item – not upheldThis headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported allegations by several caregivers that they had been instructed to "assist" clients with masturbation and sex toys – allegedly in breach of children's interests Findings Standard 9 (children's interests) – adult nature of item clearly signposted – subject matter handled discreetly and sensitively – unsupervised child viewers unlikely to be watching – 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 Tuesday 21 October 2008, was announced at the beginning of the programme as follows: Tonight, an adult subject, we advise discretion. There are allegations tonight that caregivers of the intellectually disabled are being given explicit training to help clients reach sexual satisfaction. We hear from those workers who say they were demeaned and disgusted....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on, and interviewed, young Māori activist who expressed his views on the Government’s sale of state assets and mining proposals – presentation of item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – views expressed by Wikatane Popata represented one end of a political spectrum – his views were described as radical and audience would have understood that they were not representative of all Māori or young Māori – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on the Popata brothers and their political views – reporter took “devil’s advocate” approach and programme included viewer feedback – not upheld Standard 1…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on an incident at Fairfield College in which a group of teenage girls were admitted to hospital after taking drugs – included summary of problems previously experienced at Fairfield College – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – in any event, alternative viewpoints were presented and representatives from Fairfield College were invited to appear on the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate and did not create a misleading impression about the problems faced at Fairfield College – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Fairfield College was provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment and its response was adequately conveyed in the broadcast – Fairfield College was treated fairly – not upheld This…...

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 – report on the sale of horse meat for human consumption that had been processed as pet food – included undercover investigation – reporter shown speaking with the owner of pet food factory allegedly supplying horse meat – reporter told to leave the property but continued to ask questions – allegedly in breach of law and order Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – reporter acted in a professional and appropriate manner – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this decision. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item focused on an investigation of alleged dangerous driving practices in the New Zealand Army – contained interviews with an army driving instructor Greg McQuillan and Colonel Paul van Den Broek – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – NZDF given adequate opportunity to respond to allegations and present the Army's perspective – broadcaster provided the necessary significant viewpoints on the topic within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment, "A licence to kill?...

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....