Showing 1201 - 1220 of 2204 results.
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – carried out testing on imported and locally produced olive oil – stated that sensory panel was “IOC accredited” and its supervisor was “the only person qualified by the IOC… to convene a sensory panel” – reported that all European imports failed sensory test and two failed chemical test – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – references to IOC accreditation were inaccurate and gave greater status to the testing than was justified – broadcaster was put on notice that the testing was not “IOC accredited” but nevertheless made statements of fact to that effect – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – notwithstanding finding one aspect of the programme was inaccurate, complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and mitigate any resulting unfairness, and its response was adequately presented – not upheld No Order This headnote does…...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item focused on couple who received verbal estimate for plumbing work that was significantly less than the final bill – included interview with the couple and the plumber –advised viewers on how to avoid unanticipated costs by obtaining written quotes – allegedly unfair to plumber FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – plumber provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his viewpoint was adequately reflected in the item – item did not create unfairly negative representation of plumber’s character or conduct – high level of public interest in advice provided to tradespeople and consumers – plumber treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported highlights of the ‘2013 MTV Video Music Awards’ and included footage of a female artist, Miley Cyrus, performing a provocative dance called ‘twerking’ while wearing a nude-coloured PVC bikini. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the footage was inappropriate for broadcast during the news. The footage, while not to everyone’s taste, was relatively brief in the context of the item, which featured a number of highlights, and gave a flavour of what had occurred without being gratuitous. The inclusion of the footage was relevant in illustrating why the performance had generated worldwide media attention. Overall, the item was acceptable in the context of an unclassified news programme targeted at adults....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-100:Minister of Women's Affairs (Hon Jenny Shipley) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-100 PDF635. 3 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-080:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-080 PDF332. 98 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-084:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-084 PDF500. 47 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-046:Malley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-046 PDF446. 44 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-051:Pownall and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-051 PDF483. 04 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-104:Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104 PDF313. 81 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-067–068:Newborn and Becker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-067–068 PDF (1. 07 MB)...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-058:Andrews and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-058 PDF489. 29 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-042:McNair and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-042 PDF331. 38 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-141–143:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Alcohol Healthwatch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-141, 1993-142, 1993-143 PDF714. 53 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-005:Auckland District Law Society and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-005 PDF1. 07 MB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-151–155:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-151–155 PDF1. 22 MB...