Showing 81 - 88 of 88 results.
ComplaintPrime Living – magazine programme – incidental alcohol promotion – liquor promotion on backdrops and props – complaint upheld by broadcaster FindingsStandard A3 – presenter wearing clothing carrying name of beer – uphold appropriate – now robust complaints procedure – action sufficient Standard A4 – presenter’s clothing not backdrop or prop – not uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Prime Living, a magazine programme, is broadcast each weekday by Prime Television. During the episode broadcast in the Waikato on 15 October 1999 between noon–1. 00pm, the presenter wore a rugby jersey bearing the words "Waikato Draught". The Complaints Secretary (Cliff Turner) for the Group Against Liquor Advertising (GALA) complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast breached the standards relating to the incidental promotion of liquor, and to the use of liquor promotions on backdrops and props....
ComplaintBulworth – film – two screenings – obscene language – fuck – cock sucker FindingsStandard S2 – context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The film Bulworth, a political satire, was broadcast on Sky Movie Max at 6. 10pm on 13 June 2001 and at 4. 40pm on 18 June 2001. It contained a scene during which a young boy swore at a police officer and called him a "fucking pig cock sucker". [2] Phillip Smits complained to Sky Network Television Limited, the broadcaster, that the language was "obscene". [3] Sky did not uphold the complaints. It considered that the language used, when considered in context, did not breach currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language. [4] Dissatisfied with Sky’s response, Mr Smits referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....
The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint an item on Prime News, reporting on reactions to comments made by ACT Party Leader David Seymour on the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, as well as an incident where two men went to the Ministry and filmed staff while asking about expenditure, breached the accuracy standard. The complainant considered the broadcast breached the standard as it gave the misleading impression that two men had threatened staff at the Ministry as a result of Seymour’s statements, and it was inaccurate to suggest the men ‘threatened’ staff when ‘they only filmed staff while asking about spending’. The Authority agreed the broadcast’s introduction could have given the impression the two men went to the Ministry as a direct result of Seymour’s comments (when this occurred prior)....
The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about the movie Overlord as the complaint to the broadcaster did not amount to an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the broadcaster did not have to accept this as a valid formal complaint, on the grounds the complaint was about the storyline and genre, rather than an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Declined jurisdiction...
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that statements made during Uncharted with Sam Neill were inaccurate. A complaint was made that host Sam Neill and an interviewee during the programme implied that missionaries primarily came to New Zealand for the purpose of acquiring land, which was misleading and misrepresented their good work. The Authority considered that the programme was clearly framed from the outset as a chance for untold or unexplored stories and perspectives to be expressed. In these circumstances, the Authority found that the statements complained about were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and were therefore not subject to the requirements of the accuracy standard. The Authority’s intervention in upholding the complaint would therefore represent an unreasonable and unjustified limit on the right to freedom of expression....
Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Kalgoorlie Cops – included footage of barmaids wearing lingerie and skimpy outfits as well as a topless barmaid using her bare breasts to entertain patrons – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decencyFindingsStandard P2 (good taste and decency) – content intended to be light-hearted and humorous – channel and programme targeted at adults – episode classified “M” and preceded by a clear warning for nudity and mature themes – filtering technology available on SKY – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An episode of the reality TV series Kalgoorlie Cops was broadcast on the Crime and Investigation Channel at 2pm on Monday 20 June 2011. The narrator introduced the programme as follows: This is Kalgoorlie, sitting on the edge of Australia’s biggest gold mine....
The Authority has upheld a complaint that two episodes of The Box Seat breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Pay TV Code of Broadcasting Standards. The Authority found that the segments about blood spinning in harness racing covered a controversial issue of public importance but failed to include balancing views on the issue being discussed or indicate that the programmes were presented from a specific perspective. The Authority also found that, although the broadcasts did not contain any specific factual inaccuracies, the omission of alternative perspectives and information on the safety and propriety of blood spinning meant that the broadcast was misleading as a whole. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard. The Authority considered the publication of this decision sufficient to censure the breach of standards by the broadcaster and made no orders. Upheld: Balance, Accuracy. Not upheld: Fairness. No orders...
The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme’s reference to delivering tax relief was misleading as the Party’s policy of ‘tax cuts for the majority of families…[has] been proven to be incorrect by independent economists’. The Authority considered viewers would have understood the statement to be advocacy or opinion rather than fact, encouraging the public to vote for National, and the relevant statement reflected National Party policy; it is not a quantified promise, a guarantee, or a statement of fact. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy), E2: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...