Search Rapua

Search Decisions
Broadcast Information
Codes and Standards
Date Range
Showing 41 - 47 of 47 results.
SORT BY
Decisions
Group Against Liquor Advertising and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1997-011
1997-011

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-011 Dated the 13th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Decisions
Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1994-022
1994-022

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 22/94 Dated the 5th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Decisions
Group Against Liquor Advertising and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1996-050
1996-050

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-050 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Decisions
Group Against Liquor Advertising and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-120, 1999-121, 1999-122
1999-120–122

SummarySuper Liquor Sportsnight was broadcast on TVOne between 10:35–11:35pm on the evenings of 10, 17 and 24 May 1999. It is a specialist sporting programme and each episode looks at a number of topical issues. On behalf of the Group Against Liquor Advertising (GALA), Complaints Secretary Cliff Turner complained that each broadcast breached the standard which requires that the saturation of liquor advertising be avoided. The combined number of visual and verbal liquor sponsorship credits, together with liquor advertising screened during the commercial breaks, he wrote, amounted to 26 in the case of the first programme, 26 for the second and 22 for the third. A guideline to the Promotion of Liquor Code, he noted, limited the number of permissible references to liquor in hour long programmes to 20. TVNZ acknowledged that as the guideline had been exceeded, the standard had been breached on each occasion....

Decisions
Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Canterbury Television Ltd - 1994-049
1994-049

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 49/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR of Hamilton Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LI MI TE D I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Decisions
Group Against Liquor Advertising and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1996-074
1996-074

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-074 Dated the 18th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA (Group Against Liquor Advertising) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Decisions
MacKay and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1998-165
1998-165

SummaryA music video entitled "Smack my Bitch up" was broadcast at about 10. 30pm on Havoc on the closedown show of MTV on 7 June 1998. Ms MacKay of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster of MTV, that the video breached several broadcasting standards because of its portrayal of sexual violence, its exploitation of women and its promotion of contemptuous treatment of women. In its response, TVNZ argued that contextual factors, such as the time of day of the broadcast and the intended audience, were relevant when assessing this complaint. In reaching its conclusion that no standards were breached, it maintained that there was no glamorisation of the exploitation of women nor any aspect which demeaned or represented women as inherently inferior. It argued that the main character’s behaviour was seen as unacceptable, and therefore there was no breach of the good taste standard....

1 2 3