Showing 81 - 87 of 87 results.
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Crowd Goes Wild – host made comments about acclimatising to conditions in India leading up to the Commonwealth Games – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comments related to conditions in India – comments did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Indian people as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of The Crowd Goes Wild, broadcast on Prime at 7pm on 14 September 2010, an item reported on the Samoan Rugby Sevens team’s training in preparation for the Commonwealth Games in India. Following the item, one of the hosts, Mark Richardson, said to his co-host Andrew Mulligan: I think that’s wonderful, you know, trying to acclimatise by training in the heat....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), featuring cage fighting, was broadcast on SKY Sport. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the sport was too violent and inappropriate for broadcast at 5pm. This was a legitimate sport, broadcast on a niche channel dedicated to sport, and was appropriately classified M, indicating it was suitable for mature audiences aged 16 and over. Filtering technology allowed parents to block the content if they wished. Not Upheld: Children, Violence, Law and OrderIntroduction[1] An Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) tournament, featuring cage fighting, was broadcast at 5pm on a SKY Sport channel, on Monday 21 April 2014. It was classified M (suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over)....
The BSA has jurisdiction to consider complaints about a programme that has been simultaneously broadcast on television and streamed on the internet (simulcasts). The BSA does not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about YouTube content that is available on demand, as on demand content is excluded from the definition of broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority determined that the complaint should be considered under the Pay Television Code. Jurisdiction accepted...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 62/94 Dated the 15th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for A Nightmare on Elm Street – broadcast on SKY Sport channels – contained brief images from the film of Freddy Krueger – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standardFindingsStandard P3 (children) – images were brief and not disturbing in themselves – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] A promo for upcoming movies on SKY was broadcast on 3, 10 and 15 July at various times on SKY Sport channels. One of the movies being promoted was A Nightmare on Elm Street, and two brief images were shown of the serial killer in the film, Freddy Krueger. [2] Nicola Te Rangiita made a formal complaint to SKY Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the promo breached Standard P3 (children)....
The Authority has not upheld two complaints about Prime News’ coverage of King Charles’ coronation on 1 and 2 May 2023. The complainant alleged the first broadcast was unbalanced as it only included interviews with people who were opposed to the idea of the public being asked to participate in a pledge of allegiance to the King. They further considered the second broadcast was inaccurate as the reporter did not back up their introductory statement ‘Love him or loathe him, in London right now, you can't escape him’ with evidence that people did loathe King Charles, and described a souvenir of the King ‘as a clown’....
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party which included questions on possible funding cuts a National-led government might make. The complaint was that these statements were an inaccurate portrayal of National’s proposed cuts. The Authority found the statements were clearly questions and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than statements of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. The harm alleged was not sufficient to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention. Standard E4: Misleading Programmes did not apply. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy), E4: Misleading Programmes...