Showing 61 - 80 of 2192 results.
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on “skimming” scheme in which accused allegedly “fleeced money from customers who used eftpos machines inside at least one Auckland business” – referred to and showed footage of the “Brooklyn Bar” in Auckland where, according to one customer, he had his card “skimmed” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item wrongly identified the Brooklyn Bar as having been targeted by the fraud – Brooklyn Bar was singled out and was the only business identified, which was unfair and created the impression the business was unsafe – reporter should have obtained verification from the complainant who owns the bar – complainant not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and correct information – complainant and his business treated unfairly – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that…...
One News item available for viewing on TVNZ’s website – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaint FindingNot “broadcasting” within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – no jurisdiction to consider complaint This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] A One News item, which was broadcast on TV One on 15 May 2010, was subsequently available to be viewed on TVNZ’s website. Complaint [2] Through his solicitor, James Johnson made a complaint about the One News item to Television New Zealand Ltd. He acknowledged that, as more than 20 working days had passed since the television broadcast of that item had occurred, he was unable to make a formal complaint about that broadcast. However, he argued, because the item was still available for viewing on TVNZ’s website his complaint was within the 20 working day timeframe....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during One News – characters used the terms “balls”, “arse” and “bastard” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language of a low level – One News aimed at adult audience – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting the promo during One News – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, was broadcast on TV One between 6pm and 7pm on Wednesday 24 August 2011, during One News which was unclassified....
ComplaintHolmes – offensive language – presenter said "bugger the international media" – America’s Cup context FindingsStandard G2 – "bugger" not acceptable for common usage, but acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During an item about the America’s Cup on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 February 2000, the presenter said "bugger the international media". Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word "bugger" breached broadcasting standards which require the observance of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a highly charged America’s Cup campaign, the use of the word "bugger" did not breach broadcasting standards. It did not accept that its use carried the suggestion that the word was now acceptable for common usage. It declined to uphold the complaint....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Castle promo – contained comments, “a big time slugger gets whacked”, and “someone used his head for batting practice” – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – promo contained references to violence but no visual depictions of violence – would not have disturbed children – content was correctly classified PGR – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Castle, a criminal drama in which the murder of a baseball player was being investigated, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 10pm on 5 January 2011, during Masterchef UK, which was rated PGR. A voiceover said, “a big time slugger gets whacked”, and a character in the programme was shown commenting, “someone used his head for batting practice”....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-088:Matthews and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-088 PDF349. 69 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-086:Paton-Simpson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-086 PDF458. 1 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-095:Edmunds and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-095 PDF846. 89 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-032:Holt and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-032 PDF770. 19 KB...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 24/94 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...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 106/94 Dated the 3rd day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R J ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 4/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AMBLA (AUSTRALASIAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-138 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G RAWSON of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-164 Decision No: 1996-165 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by BRENDAN TUOHY (2) of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
In an episode of Seven Sharp, journalist Laura Daniels presented regarding creating a European inspired holiday from within New Zealand, in the context of COVID-19 travel restrictions. It included a scene where she pretended to eat cigarettes from a plate. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast was inappropriate for children to watch and breached the children’s interests standard. Taking the contextual factors into account, in particular the audience expectations of Seven Sharp, the Authority found the segment was unlikely to adversely affect children. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed ‘growing calls’ for New Zealand’s right to silence laws to be urgently changed. The complaint was the item failed to present the views of the many authorities who support the status quo, or include relevant historical context, and used unduly emotive language to advance an unbalanced narrative. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, within the period of current interest, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of views and information on the right to silence in cases of child abuse. It also found the broadcast approached this issue from a particular perspective and did not purport to be a balanced examination....
The majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of the programme Renters breached the privacy of the tenants of the properties featured. The majority of the Authority did not find any of the tenants were identifiable. As the privacy standard only applies to identifiable individuals, the standard did not apply. The minority view was that the information disclosed was adequate to enable viewers, beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matters disclosed, to identify one individual and the information had the quality of private information such that the disclosure breached the privacy standard. Not Upheld by Majority: Privacy...
The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about the joking and flirtatious interactions between two males on a Breakfast programme segment. The Authority considered the complaint related to matters of personal preference and was not an appropriate use of its time and resources. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Shortland Street featured a storyline about the developing relationship of a young same-sex couple, and included several scenes of the two kissing, including shots of them from the waist up in bed together. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these scenes breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority acknowledged there is value in programmes such as Shortland Street, which provides entertainment and reflects contemporary society and evolving social issues and attitudes. Shortland Street is a PGR-classified medical drama series that has screened in the 7pm timeband for many years. It is well known for featuring adult themes. In that context the level of sexual content did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, nor would be likely to adversely affect any child viewers....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary series Inconceivable followed the fertility struggles of eight New Zealand couples over the course of two years. During this episode, one of the couples went to the doctor for a blood test. Contact details on the test documentation were briefly shown, including the woman’s full name and her mobile number, and the couple’s home phone number and partial street address. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this breached the couple’s privacy. The broadcaster advised that the couple reviewed the episode prior to screening and gave their full and informed consent for it to be broadcast. The shot in question was very brief, such that many viewers would likely have overlooked the level of detail shown....