Search Rapua

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 – interviewee compared playing old songs to having sex and an orgasm – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comparison was delivered in a straightforward and low-key manner – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item was mild and light-hearted in nature – contextual factors – 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 5 April 2007, showed an interview with Ray Manzarek, a former member of the rock group “The Doors”. [2] Towards the end of the interview, Mr Manzarek was asked if he ever got tired of playing the same songs. Mr Manzarek replied: Are you sick and tired of having sex?...

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(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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – comment that an earthquake had occurred “just after sunrise” – complaint that earthquake was at least one hour and 45 minutes after sunrise – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – figure of speech – introductory comment only – not presented as a statement of fact – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up on TV One at 7pm on 21 January 2005 described an earthquake which had been felt in the Wellington district that morning. The presenter said “the big ‘quake struck just after sunrise”. Complaint [2] Donald McDonald complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate and in breach of Standard 5....

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 – 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 on a police search that ended up with two officers being shot and a police dog being killed – contained interviews with a neighbour living next to the property where the incident occurred and the Commissioner of Police – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview with Police Commissioner was straightforward and respectful – Mr Broad and the police treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s behaviour and comments did not encourage the denigration of members of the New Zealand police force –…...

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye – focused on a chemical named paraphenylenediamine – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate or misleading statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to seek comment from the industry body – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on TV One’s Close Up programme, broadcast on 25 May 2007 at 7pm, discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye....

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....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about homeopathy sceptics – included comment from sceptics, a homeopathy client, a practitioner and New Zealand Council of Homeopaths – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – three interviewees offered views in favour of homeopathy – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view – 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 Wednesday 10 February 2010, featured an experiment conducted by the New Zealand Sceptics Society in which they tried to overdose on homeopathic remedies. They reached the conclusion that the remedies were essentially water containing extremely diluted substances....

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 reported on police corruption – presenter interviewed Police Association President, former police officer and a defence lawyer – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – interviewees given sufficient opportunity to comment on the issue and present their perspectives – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints on the topic – 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 19 October 2010, reported on allegations of police corruption in an historical murder case. The presenter conducted a live studio interview with a former police officer who had been involved in the case, and a defence lawyer, who said that an investigation into current police corruption was required....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Item on Close Up looking at the nudist lifestyle – reporter visited a nudist camp – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item not harmful to children – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Close Up on TV One at 7pm on 1 February 2005 used the occasion of the “nude Olympics” to look into the nudist lifestyle....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...