Showing 61 - 80 of 587 results.
SummaryMalcolm Sutherland, a New Zealand soldier in Vietnam in 1970, was killed by "friendly fire". The incident was "covered-up" by the platoon commander, Lieutenant Roger Mortlock, and the death was reported officially as being the result of "enemy fire". The cover-up was explained on a 20/20 item broadcast at 7. 30pm on 21 February 1999. The item reported that (now) Brigadier Mortlock had recently resigned under threat of dismissal. Ms Banbury, the late Malcolm Sutherland’s sister, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the item breached her privacy as she and another brother had been filmed at an emotional time at a Vietnam Veterans’ Reunion in 1998 when they accepted an honour on her brother’s behalf at a time when they did not know the true situation....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Rock – stunt in which announcers let off fireworks to test “Jimmy’s ability to dodge fireworks” – allegedly in breach of law and order and social responsibility standardsFindings Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Principle 7Principle 7 (social responsibility) – stunt was socially irresponsible – did not consider effects on child listeners – hosts’ manner trivialised the potential danger of aiming fireworks at another person – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] In a segment called “Do Stuff to Jimmy” on The Rock, broadcast at approximately 8. 15am on 20 October 2006, the announcers commented on the recent call to ban fireworks for public sale....
Complaint91ZM – Countdown – Drive Show – comments about bus rage on buses operated by Stagecoach in Auckland – presenter (Stables) advised passengers not to take out frustrations on bus drivers but to damage buses – some broadcasts from buses – passengers encouraged to dance (rage) – failure to maintain standards consistent with law and order – unsuitable for children – complaint under Principle 2 and Principle 7 and Guideline 7b upheld by broadcaster – agreed to broadcast apology and pay half complainant's costs – unable to agree on wording of apology FindingsAction taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of statement including the words "reckless, irresponsible and inappropriate" This headnote does not form part of the decision....
ComplaintThe Sopranos – scene in which man attacks and kills pregnant woman – offensive – violence against woman and unborn baby – horrific – unjustifiable – gratuitous FindingsStandard G2 – unacceptable material – uphold Standard V1 – scene not essential or justifiable in context of programme – uphold Standard V2 – realistic violence used gratuitously for heightened impact – uphold Standard G8 – subsumed This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Sopranos was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 6 September 2001. The Sopranos is a drama about an American-Italian mafia family living in the eastern United States. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a scene in which a pregnant woman is beaten and killed, which he considered breached standards relating to good taste and decency, violence and appropriate classification....
ComplaintHolmes – cure for acne – drug identified – side effects not reported – misleading – unbalanced – partial FindingsStandard G6 – not controversial issue to which the standard applies – decline to determine; other standards not relevant ObservationIssue to be considered when free-to-air code is revised This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The availability of an effective treatment for acne was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 23 March 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. A dermatologist and a doctor were interviewed, as well as two young people who had both been successfully treated by a named drug. The Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd (PHARMAC) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was misleading and unbalanced. In particular it expressed its concern that the broadcaster had been used to promote a prescription medicine....
ComplaintOne News – item about HIV positive man facing charges of sexual offending – HIV status irrelevant to criminal allegations – broadcaster did not respect principles of law - unbalanced – impartial – unfair – broadcaster not mindful of effect on children – item caused unnecessary panic, alarm and distress FindingsStandard G5 – standard concerned with maintenance of law and order – possible breach of law beyond Authority’s jurisdiction – no uphold Standard G16 – broadcast did not cause "unnecessary" alarm – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 23 November 2000 described the court appearance of a North Shore teacher who faced 20 charges in relation to sex offences allegedly committed against six boys. The news item described the man, whose name had been suppressed, as having tested HIV positive....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-154 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN TURNEY of Kumeu Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 88/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNION INC Broadcaster CAPITAL FM LIMITED of Wellington I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 38/95 Dated the 29th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by E A LIGHT of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...
SummaryThe film Eyes Wide Shut was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 29 July 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Trailers for the programme were shown earlier on the same day. Mr Walker and Mrs Siew complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the scenes of lovemaking and nakedness were unsuitable for television viewing, particularly at a time when children would be watching. The film had been devised to be pornographic and had been given an R18 film rating, Mr Walker wrote, but he was not aware that any warning was given by the broadcaster before the scenes were shown on television. The explicit sexual material was also unacceptable for the time band during which the trailer for the programme was placed, Mrs Siew wrote....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-098 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP DUNLOP of Pokeno Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-147 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHERYL PHILPS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-160 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NEW ZEALAND POLICE (Otago District) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four promos broadcast prior to 8. 30pm – three for programme Bad Girls – one for quiz show How Normal Are You? – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – Bad Girls – material suitable to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You? – material suitable to be rated G – not upheld by majority Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Bad Girls – material appropriate to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You?...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Criminal Minds – two versions of the promo were broadcast – both versions referred to a “prolific serial killer” and showed a person’s throat being drawn on with a blue pen – one referred to the serial killer removing the limbs of his victims while they were alive and showed a body part lying in the desert – allegedly in breach of standards of programme classification, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promos contained adult themes – both versions were deserving of a higher classification – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promos incorrectly classified and contained gruesome adult themes – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-074–076:New Zealand Shooters Rights Association Inc, Otago-Southland Firearms Coalition and Beltowski and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-074, 1992-075, 1992-076 PDF1. 9 MB...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 105/94 Dated the 3rd day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS SORRELL of Darfield Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-170 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUGLAS JENKIN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...