Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about pyjamas purchased from The Warehouse that had ignited and burned a five-year-old boy while he was standing next to a gas heater – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster upheld one aspect of accuracy – balance, fairness and dissatisfaction with action taken referred to AuthorityFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – action taken by broadcaster on aspect it upheld was sufficient – no other inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to The Warehouse in the preparation and presentation of the programme – upheld Orders Broadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $3,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair, unbalanced and in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 9g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – time of broadcast – standard does not apply – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Popetown, called “Derby Day” screened on C4 at 9. 30pm, on 10 August 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported – release of woman’s lawyer’s letter when lawyer was criticised by Minister of Immigration – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair to lawyer and failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – no principles of law involved – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – lawyer not given opportunity to respond to Minister’s criticism – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misleading as to source of letter – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to lawyer – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent developments in the case of a young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported were covered in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 beginning at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9. 30pm on 22 June 2005. The series was set in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown), and was centred around a young priest called Father Nicholas, a group of corrupt cardinals and a child-like Pope character. [2] During the episode on 22 June 2005, Father Nicholas became a wrestling hero after accidentally knocking out pro-wrestler “Ivan the Invincible”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item investigated claims that truck drivers were working hours in excess of the legal maximum, and that some were using drugs to stay awake – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – reasonable opportunities given to present significant points of view – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Friedlander of the Road Transport Forum NZ – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item called “High Way” on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 20 June 2005 investigated claims that truck drivers were working hours in excess of the legal maximum, and that some were using drugs to stay awake....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Mummy Returns promo – broadcast on TV3 between 6pm and 7pm, and after 7pm – allegedly in breach of standards relating to children’s interestsFindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – 60 Minutes – not in breach of children’s interests – not upheld – 3 News – PGR rated promo broadcast during underlying G-time – children’s interest not sufficiently considered – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV3 broadcast two promos for the movie The Mummy Returns on 25 April 2005. The first promo was broadcast between 6 and 7pm during 3 News. The second promo was broadcast after 7pm, during 60 Minutes. Complaint [2] Graham Hoskin complained to CanWest TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcasts were in breach of Standard 9 (children’s interests), noting specifically Guidelines 9a, 9f and 9i....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Prince Philip’s birthday – host noted that the Prince had criticised a number of ethnic and social groups over the years – host mentioned the right to freedom of expression – showed a picture of Prince Philip defaced with a moustache and horns, with a speech bubble saying “I’m a dork” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – innocuous prank – raised no issue of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Prince Philip – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and unfair Decision on interlocutory application – second request for formal hearing – further request for hearing made in light of increased public interest in issue of balance between free speech and rights of religious groups to be free from mockeryFindingsAuthority may reconsider interlocutory decision if party presents new relevant information not reasonably able to be adduced at the time of the first application – new information as to increased public interest relevant in the present case – Authority reconsidered earlier decision – increased public interest still insufficient reason of itself to convene formal hearing – application declined. This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on singles looking for love – showed footage of people apparently at singles party – complainants shown – complainants were not at party – footage of them taken several years ago – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – accuracy and fairness complaints upheld – privacy complaint declined – complainants referred privacy complaint to AuthorityFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On 29 May 2006, TV3’s Campbell Live, broadcast at 7. 00pm, included an item about singles “looking for love”. The item focussed on a singles party held recently in Auckland, and showed numerous shots of people socialising, apparently at the party, including a shot of the complainants smiling for the camera....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – “Sex and the City” – investigated street prostitution in Christchurch – particular concern about under-age prostitutes – allegedly unbalanced in that the item did not acknowledge the changes since the Prostitution Reform Act 2003FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – the item dealt with street prostitution in Christchurch – a controversial issue of public importance dealt with in a balanced way – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “Sex and the City” investigated street prostitution in Christchurch and focused on under-age prostitutes. The item, broadcast on TV3’s 60 Minutes at 7. 30pm on 23 February 2006, referred to a number of incidents in Christchurch when street prostitutes had been the victims of violence. The item also included interviews with an older experienced prostitute and with a younger partially-disguised 18-year-old prostitute....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – item about security camera outside apartment in Auckland – owners concerned that camera would capture images inside their home – item said the Police had assured them that camera was broken, and once fixed any images would be pixellated – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss issue of controversial public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – one statement misleading – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item dealt justly and fairly with the Police – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On TV3 at 6pm on 30 November 2005, an item was broadcast on 3 News about a security camera positioned outside the apartment of an Auckland couple....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict of interest and declined to take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item dealt with controversy about forthcoming Erotica Parade to be held in Auckland – included footage of bare-breasted women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News broadcast on TV3 at 6. 00pm on 15 August 2006 dealt with controversy which had arisen after the Auckland City Council issued a permit for a parade down as part of the forthcoming Erotica Lifestyles Expo....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item looking at possible reasons for high crime statistics for young Māori – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not purport to cover all perspectives – discussed one part of the wider issue – period of current interest still open – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Māori community or the youths interviewed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes entitled “Māori Challenge” was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 18 April 2005. The item explored a possible link between the high rate of Māori criminal offending and the way in which male aggression may be seen as important to Māori identity, particularly through the haka....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-002633 PDF78. 95 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand – Stake Out: Models Exposed – hidden camera footage of magazine editor photographing models in his bedroom and in an apartment – allegations in the programme that he was not honest about how the models’ photographs would be used – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principles (i), (iii) and (vi) relevant – no private facts revealed therefore privacy principle (i) not breached – broadcast of hidden camera footage was in breach of privacy principle (iii) – no public interest – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $3,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $393....

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News segment called “The Week in Politics” – reference to Dr Don Brash (Leader of the National Party) travelling in a police convoy from Parliament to the Wellington Stadium – comment by presenter that he “could have walked, the lazy bugger eh! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – word “bugger” not in breach of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment not statement of fact – accuracy standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment called “The Week in Politics” was included in 3 News, broadcast on 23 July 2004, at around 6. 30pm....

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....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – follow-up to TV3 “special investigation” Let Us Spray– said that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Ministry of Health – not unfair to peer reviewer of study or to ESR – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....