Search

ComplaintHolmes – cure for acne – drug identified – side effects not reported – misleading – unbalanced – partial FindingsStandard G6 – not controversial issue to which the standard applies – decline to determine; other standards not relevant ObservationIssue to be considered when free-to-air code is revised This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The availability of an effective treatment for acne was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 23 March 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. A dermatologist and a doctor were interviewed, as well as two young people who had both been successfully treated by a named drug. The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd (PHARMAC) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was misleading and unbalanced. In particular it expressed its concern that the broadcaster had been used to promote a prescription medicine....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In a weekly interview segment on Mike Hosking Breakfast, Prime Minister John Key criticised the Labour Party while discussing a number of political topics. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host displayed political bias and let the Prime Minister criticise other parties unchallenged, without them being offered any right of reply. This segment with the Prime Minister of the day has been running for 25 years, it was transparently political advocacy, and it did not purport to be a balanced or even-handed discussion of political issues. Other politicians were also interviewed on Newstalk ZB on a regular basis. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Fairness, Accuracy, Responsible Programming, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction [1] In a weekly interview segment on Mike Hosking Breakfast, the Prime Minister John Key criticised the Labour Party while discussing a number of political topics....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-050:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-050 PDF632. 24 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of current affairs programme Outspoken interviewed two experts about the possibility of a special legal commission in New Zealand to investigate allegations of miscarriages of justice. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the broadcast breached standards because it did not mention alleged government corruption as one of the contributing factors to such injustice. Mr Golden has repeatedly referred similar complaints, which are based on his personal preferences and are matters of editorial discretion, not broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During Outspoken, a half-hour current affairs programme, the host interviewed two experts about the possibility of a special legal commission in New Zealand to investigate allegations of miscarriages of justice....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Edge Afternoons with Guy, Sharyn and Clint the hosts ran a segment called ‘Shaz Dog’s Love Shack’, where listeners could text and call in to ask for advice on love and relationships. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that ‘a discussion of sexual positions’ breached standards. The segment was consistent with the style of content and humour regularly broadcast on The Edge, and was unlikely to surprise or offend the target audience of 15- to 39-year-olds. Most of the content was in the nature of sexual innuendo and would have gone over the heads of younger listeners....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry read out a fan’s letter about her ‘lactating boobies’ and made sexually suggestive remarks about her. Later, he used the word ‘fucked’, and during a live cross a woman burst in front of the camera and said, ‘West side, fuck her in the pussy’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments were unsuitable for broadcast. Taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the broadcaster’s limited control over live content, the material did not reach the high threshold necessary to breach standards of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming Introduction [1] During The Paul Henry Show, Mr Henry read out a fan’s letter about her ‘lactating boobies’ and made sexually suggestive remarks about her. Later in the programme he used the word ‘fucked’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of Environment Matters discussed their views and opinions which were critical of conventional medicine and medical professionals. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the broadcast was unbalanced, irresponsible and denigrated medical professionals. Environment Matters was not a factual programme to which the balance standard applied and the hosts were clearly expressing their personal views so listeners would not have been unduly alarmed or distressed. Medical professionals are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During a programme called Environment Matters the hosts discussed a number of topics and made numerous comments that were heavily critical of conventional medicine and medical professionals....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-015:New Zealand Police and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-015 PDF2. 1 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-036:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Canterbury Television Ltd - 1992-036 PDF264. 86 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-053:Sharp and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-053 PDF274. 67 KB...

Complaint under sections 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – Mr Laws interviewed the complainant, Karen Batchelor, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association – Mr Laws accused Ms Batchelor of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements – Mr Laws made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Action Taken – Mr Laws took an overly aggressive approach and continuously interrupted the complainant – he made comments that were personally abusive and accused the complainant of lying – overall complainant was treated unfairly – serious breach of fairness standard – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld Standard 5…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News– item on a Labour MP using his ministerial credit card to purchase pornographic films while staying at hotels – presenter mentioned that people had been making suggestions on the website Twitter about possible titles of the films, including “Bipartisan Bitches” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – remarks light-hearted attempt at humour – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual innuendo was too sophisticated for children to understand – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – segment called “Good Sorts” profiled volunteer fireman – interviewee used the phrase “good bastard” twice – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – language used in complimentary way – not aggressive or abusive – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News was an unclassified news programme targeted at adults – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – One News was an unclassified news programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – no discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintPromo – 60 Minutes – "pissed off" – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the effects of broadcast on children – broadcaster not mindful of explicit material in promo FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV One at 6. 50pm on 10 November 2001. The promo was for an item on Dean Barker, New Zealand’s America’s Cup skipper. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about Mr Barker’s use in the promo of the phrase "pissed off". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

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 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – segment was an attempt at humour and satire – the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context, was not socially irresponsible, and did not reach high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....