Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with female porn star about her thoughts on feminism and sexuality – included footage of porn star wearing lingerie and clips from her pornographic movies – broadcaster upheld complaint under good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken – Standards 1 (good taste and decency) and 9 (children’s interests) – serious breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – costs to the Crown of $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 11 August 2010, a reporter interviewed a female porn star, Nina Hartley, about her life and thoughts on feminism and sexuality....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with actress Keisha Castle-Hughes and director Niki Caro about their new film The Vintner’s Luck – references to sex – showed scenes from the film of the main characters passionately kissing and the male character putting his head up the female’s skirt – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sex scene was gratuitous in a current affairs programme at 7pm – unsuitable for children – upheld – language was vulgar slang unexpected in this type of programme – borderline but not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – sex scene was not sufficiently discreet for PGR timeslot – upheld – language borderline but acceptable – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 1989Close Up – item about two young people training for the priesthood at a seminary on Ponsonby Road – reporter used phrases “big boss” and “big guy” when referring to God and said “helluva” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigratory FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 6 and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not encourage denigration of Christians – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – language in interview with chef Gordon Ramsay – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching unsupervised – Gordon Ramsay famous for use of bad language so not unexpected – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Monday 23 June 2008, the programme’s host interviewed Gordon Ramsay, a well-known and hot-tempered chef. During the interview, the host asked him, “So no swearing at home then? ” Mr Ramsay replied that although he and his family did not swear at home, he could not stop his children hearing swear words at school in the playground, and his eight-year-old son had recently been taught the word “wanker” by his schoolmates....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – investigated high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand – interviewed two girls who unexpectedly fell pregnant, one of whom chose to have an abortion – presenter conducted studio interview with an “expert in youth sexual health” – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed why teenage pregnancy rate was so high in New Zealand, not the merits of abortion – viewers would have been aware of alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 28 October 2010, considered high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in New Zealand. The presenter stated in the introduction, “The issue is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on an incident at Fairfield College in which a group of teenage girls were admitted to hospital after taking drugs – included summary of problems previously experienced at Fairfield College – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – in any event, alternative viewpoints were presented and representatives from Fairfield College were invited to appear on the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate and did not create a misleading impression about the problems faced at Fairfield College – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Fairfield College was provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment and its response was adequately conveyed in the broadcast – Fairfield College was treated fairly – not upheld This…...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – update on a 2005 story about a Chinese family – father had been deported and mother was fighting a deportation order – interviewed the couple’s three children – daughter was shown distressed and in tears – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster failed to use discretion and sensitivity when interviewing child about a distressing situation – child was exploited – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 14 November 2006, discussed a long-running court case involving a Chinese couple who had come to New Zealand on a working visa more than a decade ago....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on, and interviewed, young Māori activist who expressed his views on the Government’s sale of state assets and mining proposals – presentation of item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – views expressed by Wikatane Popata represented one end of a political spectrum – his views were described as radical and audience would have understood that they were not representative of all Māori or young Māori – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on the Popata brothers and their political views – reporter took “devil’s advocate” approach and programme included viewer feedback – not upheld Standard 1…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – programme asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed five flag options – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate on material points of fact or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Friday 5 February 2010, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag. The programme ran a poll to determine viewers’ preferences for a proposed flag and provided them with five different options to choose from....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling against advertisement for Charlie’s Soda – studio discussion among four men about whether the decision was out of step with society and demonstrated a double standard between advertising and television programmes – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – discussion was confined to one advertisement – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 31 January 2008, discussed the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement for Charlie’s Soda was in breach of advertising standards. According to the item, the ASA ruled that the advertisement breached a standard which required advertisements not to use sexual content to promote an unrelated product....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – discussed concerns that the product was defective and putting homes at risk – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – seen overall, item seriously criticised TimberSaver product – no scientific evidence provided to refute criticisms – no evidence provided of quality and suitability of product – unbalanced – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – scientist on programme not independent – conflict of interest – contrary to guideline 5e – upheld – other aspects of accuracy complaint not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – seen overall, item unfair to Osmose – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,000 Payment of costs to the Crown $2,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported that a 40-year-old man had been accused of knowingly infecting people with HIV – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – identifiable to limited group of people who had seen the website or the photos – allegation of criminal behaviour not a private fact – HIV-positive status normally a private fact but public interest defence applied – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high level of public interest especially in alerting those who could identify the man – guideline relating to discrimination and denigration not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast at 7pm on TV One on 15 May 2009, was introduced as follows: What kind of person knowingly infects lovers with the HIV virus?...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement – profiled an ex-member, X, who claimed that she made substantial donations to the church – included hidden camera footage of church service – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – X was identifiable and item disclosed private facts about her – however, X was a willing participant and there is insufficient evidence to show she withdrew her consent to the broadcast – item did not breach X’s privacy – Bishop and Pastor were identifiable in hidden camera footage but did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about large-scale animal neglect on a farm owned by one of New Zealand’s largest dairy producers – included footage of the complainant – allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled into believing the complainant was involved with animal cruelty on the farm – item accurate on material points of fact – majority – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – parts of the item borderline, but fair overall – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – complainant’s behaviour contributed to the way in which she was portrayed – majority – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....