Showing 21 - 23 of 23 results.
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six cafés in Auckland – stated that food sample from Café Cézanne had tested positive for faecal coliforms which “could make you very sick” – sample had been incorrectly labelled and it was later discovered that it did not come from Café Cézanne – in the meantime broadcaster broadcast an apology (in following episode) that did not exclude possibility that sample came from Café Cézanne – both programmes allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – serious allegation that Café Cézanne’s food was contaminated with faecal coliforms was broadcast without verifying or checking results – sample did not come from Café Cézanne – apology was also inaccurate and inadequate to rectify the breach – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not give the complainants a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond because they were not…...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera trial of video game retailers – actors aged 16, 14 and 12 years attempted to buy R18 video game – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers saw the hidden camera footage – no evidence to suggest item was inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 29 June 2010, the presenter summarised the results of a hidden camera trial in which actors aged 16, 14 and 12 years attempted to buy a video game which had an R18 classification. A number of retailers refused sale without proof of age, while others proceeded with the sale and swiped the actors’ eftpos cards....
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....