Showing 21 - 23 of 23 results.
ComplaintTarget – description of house cleaner as tradesperson – denigration of tradespeople – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – offensive Findings (1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – no uphold (3) Standard G4 – no unfairness – no uphold (4) Standard G13 – no denigration or discrimination – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 at 7. 00pm on 14 May 2000 featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial. One of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour....
Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – actor ordered four different gift baskets from four different companies over the phone – presenter commented on what the phone operators had said – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose the identity of the phone operator – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Tuesday 13 May 2008, contained a review of four different gift basket companies. The programme used an actor to call each of the four companies and order a gift basket to the value of $100....
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....