Showing 21 - 23 of 23 results.
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item on formaldehyde levels in imported clothing – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme would have misled and unnecessarily alarmed viewers in its presentation of formaldehyde test results – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $4,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 August 2007. The programme discussed the use of formaldehyde, “a highly toxic chemical that can be fatal”, in the manufacture of clothing. The presenter stated that formaldehyde was used to help keep fabric stain-free, wrinkle-free and disinfected....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera trial evaluated six car grooming companies – complainant’s business sign was shown in establishing shot for another company’s evaluation – allegedly in breach of fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster could have taken more care but shot was brief and the programme made it clear which company was being evaluated – not unfair to complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV3 on Tuesday 4 November 2009, the presenter summarised the results of a hidden camera trial in which an actress hired six different car grooming companies. Target hid a ten-dollar note in the back of the car and some change in the front seat as a test of the car groomers’ honesty....
SummaryA segment on consumer rights relating to boundary fences was included in Target broadcast on TV3 on 29 August 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. A brief shot of a man’s buttocks was seen in a skit performed by two actors. Dawn Shelford, on behalf of Preserving Communication Standards Trust Inc, complained that she and the members of her group found this segment objectionable. She said they did not consider it appropriate for this segment to have been included in a consumer rights programme as it was "a kind of titillation based on public indecency". TV3 responded that the 7-second view of the actor’s bare bottom was in its view acceptable in the context. It did not agree that the scene was objectionable and exceeded community standards of decency. It declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....