Showing 441 - 460 of 587 results.
Summary A competition which invited listeners to relate how and at what age they had lost their virginity was broadcast on 91 ZM in Christchurch on 23 June 1999 at about 4. 30pm. Mr Eccleton complained to the station manager that by promoting the competition, the announcer was being irresponsible and cheap. He said he considered it to be "simply tacky" to promote the competition. When he did not have a response from the station within 20 working days, Mr Eccleton referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. At the Authority’s request, the station responded to the complaint. First it advised that it had not received the original letter of complaint, and secondly, that when the second letter was referred to it, it had not treated the matter as a formal complaint....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 64/95 Decision No: 65/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEGAVITAMIN LABORATORIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and DR WARREN STEWART of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R A Barraclough Co-opted member...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-183 Decision No: 1996-184 Decision No: 1996-185 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by BOB ATKINSON of Nelson and EVAN DAVIES of Hamilton and MARIA DOVE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 13/95 Dated the 9th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN KIRBY of Auckland 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: 53/95 Dated the 22nd day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 130/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRANCIS FISCHER of Dipton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-040 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT H of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about a convicted murderer refusing a heart transplant – included footage of interviews from Sunday and mentioned that the full Sunday item would be broadcast later that evening – allegedly in breach of responsible programming FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – item was a legitimate news story in its own right – guideline 8d does not apply to promos – viewers not deceived or disadvantaged – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 6 December 2009, reported on a convicted murderer who was refusing a heart transplant. The presenter introduced the item by saying: He’s served his time, 14 years for a murder that shocked the country back in 1990....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men promo – language of characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour was self-deprecating and in tone of pantomime or slapstick comedy – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo acceptable during PGR programme – correctly classified – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – content of promo did not warrant an AO restriction – not likely to have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the comedy programme Two and a Half Men was broadcast on TV2 at approximately 7. 53pm on Sunday 4 May 2008 during an episode of Ugly Betty (PGR)....
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on New Zealand protestor’s decision to travel to Gaza with his son as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla – commented on recent Israeli commando raid on another aid flotilla – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on one man – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Close Up was an unclassified current affairs programme – item would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Home and Away – programme classified G and broadcast at 5. 30pm contained storyline involving the date rape of a teenage girl – allegedly in breach of responsible programming, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – episode was unsuitable for unsupervised child viewers and incorrectly classified G – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Home and Away, an Australian soap opera, included a storyline that involved the date rape of a teenage girl. The episode was classified G and broadcast on TV3 at 5. 30pm on 11 April 2013. [2] David Simpson made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the episode was “highly offensive” and that themes of rape and HIV were inappropriate in a G-rated programme....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News and a later ONE News update showed a highly-ranked New Zealand mixed martial artist's loss in an Ultimate Fighting Championship match, in which he was kicked and punched repeatedly in the head. The Authority declined to uphold two complaints that the footage was excessively violent because the level of physicality was not unexpected and acceptable in the context of a sport news story covering a fight. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News and a later ONE News update showed a highly-ranked New Zealand mixed martial artist's loss in an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) match, in which he was kicked and punched repeatedly in the head until the referee stopped the fight....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-079:Wardlaw and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-079 PDF438. 69 KB...
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the upcoming flag referendum and featured an interview with an Australian advocate for changing the flag. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that presenter Mike Hosking ‘encouraged the New Zealand public to vote a certain way by reiterating his own prejudices and then using an Australian broadcaster to support his own views’. While Mr Hosking made his view in support of changing the flag known, the alternative view was adequately presented during the item. Given the widespread coverage of the flag referendum, viewers could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant perspectives on the issue, and would not have been deceived or disadvantaged as a result of this item. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp discussed the upcoming flag referendum....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two hosts on George FM Breakfast asked listeners to send in the names and profiles of female users of Instagram described as ‘do-nothing bitches’. The names of two women, A and B, were submitted. The hosts went on to comment extensively on A’s profile, making inappropriate and disparaging comments about her, and also contacted A and interviewed her on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks having found breaches of the fairness and good taste and decency standards was insufficient, and also found that the broadcast breached the privacy of both women....
Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....