Search

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on dispute between Jim Anderton and Mike Moore – item showed an email from the complainant in which her name and email address were visible – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principles 1 and 4 – email address not covered by privacy principle 4 – personal email address could be a private fact for the purposes of privacy principle 1 in some circumstances – in this case disclosure was incidental to the focus of the report – the disclosure was brief and would not be highly offensive to the objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintA viewer of Outrageous Fortune complained about the "graphic naked sex acts", which were "bordering on pornography", and the line "I want your cock in me now", delivered by one of the female characters. The viewer said the programme breached standards of good taste and decency and was demeaning to women. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVWorks argued that viewers expected material broadcast at 9. 30pm to be "mature in nature". It said that the sex scenes and language were appropriate for the Adults Only (AO) classification, and maintained that none of the sex scenes contained explicit nudity. The broadcaster said Outrageous Fortune often contained storylines revolving around sexual themes and there was considerable audience expectation of the type of material shown in the programme....

ComplaintCockstars – documentary about Puppetry of the Penis – male nudity – "pelvic gyrations" – breach of good taste and decency – failed to consider children’s viewing interest FindingsStandards 1 – context – no uphold Standard 9 – outside children’s normally accepted viewing times – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Cockstars was a documentary about seeking performers for the stage show "Puppetry of the Penis". The programme was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on 5 June 2003. It featured nude males manipulating their genitalia. [2] Fay Woodham complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was offensive because "full frontal nudity" was unacceptable and breached standards relating to children’s viewing interests. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TV3 said in context the broadcast did not breach current norms of good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – promos contained the word “next” – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – complaint trivial and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Prior to a commercial break during 3 News on 12 July 2007, a promo was shown that read “next – Top Chef”. [2] Prior to a commercial break during 3 News on 13 July 2007, a promo was shown that read “next – Project Runway”. Complaint [3] R Dodd made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the use of the word “next” was inaccurate and in breach of broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a 3 News item on the Electoral Finance Bill was misleading and inaccurate when it said, first, that "new rules will stop big election donors from staying anonymous", and second, that "according to the new rules, donations over $10,000 can no longer be anonymous” In fact, the Bill did nothing to prevent big election donors to political parties from staying anonymous, and there was nothing new about the $10,000 threshold for declaring donations to political parties....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – report on public’s reaction to a Campbell Live item involving a "self-confessed cat hater" and his method of killing cats – item included a demonstration by Mr Spring showing how he would lower a cage containing a cat into a barrel of water – allegedly in breach of law and order standards The Authority’s DecisionStandard 2 (law and order) – item made it clear to viewers that Mr Spring’s actions were illegal – viewers were not encouraged to break the law – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast at 10. 30pm on 29 August 2007, reported on a story broadcast on TV3’s Campbell Live the previous night featuring Ray Spring, a "self-confessed cat hater" from Christchurch....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – episode included reference to a prank in which the character Butters was sleeping and another character, Cartman, purportedly put Butters’ penis in Cartman’s mouth and took a photo – another scene involved Cartman blindfolding Butters and trying to trick Butters into letting Cartman put his penis into Butters’ mouth – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item had a complex and multifaceted storyline – acts were not intended to be sexual – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item featured interview with two members of the band Linkin Park who used coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – inclusion of the language was gratuitous and deliberately provocative – no warning given – research supports likelihood of viewers being offended – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 just before 11pm on 15 October 2007, discussed the international success of American band, Linkin Park, and included an interview with two of the band members. At the beginning of the interview, one member said “Fuck you! ” in response to the interviewer welcoming them to New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Heartbreakers – film – promo – used words “May I grab your nuts” – allegedly offensive languageFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The words “May I grab your nuts” were contained in a promo for the film Heartbreakers. The scene involved the female lead talking suggestively to a male in a bar. The promo was broadcast during 3 News at approximately 6. 30pm on 18 March 2004. Complaint [2] Donald McDonald complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the phrase which suggested an indecent assault was offensive. When TV3 failed to respond to his complaint, Mr McDonald referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – host stated that Finance Minister the Hon Dr Michael Cullen had “refused to be interviewed by us since October last year” – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – conflicting evidence from the parties as to how many invitations were extended to Dr Cullen but agreed that three invitations were made and declined – upholding the complaint would place too great a limit on broadcaster’s freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Thursday 26 April 2007, discussed the latest rise in New Zealand’s interest rates as decided by the Reserve Bank. The host, John Campbell, noted that this was the eleventh rise in interest rates since the beginning of 2004....

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – report on Cindy Crawford – item contained photos of her from Playboy magazine in which her breasts were shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards The Authority's DecisionStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – majority – item did not dwell on the pictures in a salacious way – the pictures were tasteful and relevant to the context of the item – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – photographs were an artful depiction of the female form – no emphasis was placed on Ms Crawford’s breasts – sufficient consideration given to the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs programmes are unclassified – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand documentary: “What’s Really in our Food” – discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme fairly presented significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to persons or organisations taking part or referred to in the programme – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled “What’s Really in our Food” was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 13 September 2007. The programme discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item looked at a New Zealand based animal research testing facility – included interviews with people who were pro-animal use and people who were anti-animal use – included discussions on the type of animals being used, whether animal testing was necessary, alternatives and research facilities – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – to the extent that the item touched on a controversial issue of public importance it provided an adequate overview of significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no misleading or inaccurate statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – participants were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7....

Complaints under section 8 of the Broadcasting Act 1989Californication – programme contained swear words, discussions of sexual themes, sex scenes (including one involving violence) and implied teenage drug use – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was legitimate for a challenging drama – sex scenes and dialogue concerning sexual themes were integral to the storyline – teenage drug use was implied – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The first episode of a programme called Californication was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on 8 November 2007. Californication was a black comedy about a self-obsessed novelist named Hank Moody. Hank was suffering from writer’s block and was struggling to raise his 12-year-old daughter, while still holding strong feelings for his ex-girlfriend, Karen, the mother of his daughter....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on the sentencing of convicted rapist Roger Kahui included a brief re-enactment showing actor forcing entry into victim’s home – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item made it clear to viewers that it was a re-enactment – stylised dramatisation – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item was brief – unlikely to disturb child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not relevant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant – interviewed one of the hostages – image was blurred – allegedly unfair and in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – hostage not identifiable in the broadcast – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – hostage consented to the interview – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 27 January 2009, reported on an armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant in Auckland in which five staff had been held hostage. The reporter stated that "a female hostage told 3 News she kept reliving the moments she thought would be her last, and she still can’t bear to be identified"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – investigated one couple’s practice of grazing cattle along the banks of the Pahaoa River in the Wairarapa – interviewed concerned neighbour, environmental scientist, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and spokesman for Federated Farmers – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – story focused on one couple – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the Riddells were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story – reporter’s approach unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $1,670 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 4 February 2009, the host introduced a story, saying: Let’s. . ....