Search

Search Decisions
Broadcast Information
Codes and Standards
Date Range
Showing 1261 - 1280 of 2205 results.
SORT BY
Decisions
Young and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2010-119
2010-119

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator Special: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker Bryan Bruce gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether the complainant, who was a “surprise” witness at the retrial, had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies relate to implication in the programme that the complainant gave misleading evidence – Authority not in a position to determine whether the programme was inaccurate in this respect – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act…...

Decisions
Welsh and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2011-137
2011-137

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – New Zealand Labour Party Opening Address included discussion about Capital Gains Tax – showed list of countries entitled “OECD countries with some form of tax capital” which included Singapore – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air TV Code – inclusion of Singapore in list graphic was not a material point of fact – Singapore was not referred to verbally – broadcaster and the Labour Party acknowledged that it was an error and it will not appear in future broadcasts – Opening Address not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Decisions
O’Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2012-131
2012-131

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter referred to Tip Top ice cream competition and informed viewers how to enter – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – segment did not threaten objectives behind “responsible programming” – promotions of this nature are now commonplace – Broadcasting Act and standards as written do not contemplate this type of segment or give authority to address these issues – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching, in the manner envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During a segment on Breakfast, the presenter referred to a ‘Feel Tip Top Giveaway’ competition....

Decisions
Faidley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2013-052
2013-052

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…...

Decisions
Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-001
1993-001

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-001:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-001 PDF (374. 35 KB)...

Decisions
Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-045
1993-045

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-045:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-045 PDF388. 04 KB...

Decisions
One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072
1993-072

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-072:One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072 PDF477. 75 KB...

Decisions
Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139
1993-139

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-139:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139 PDF295. 26 KB...

Decisions
Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165
1993-165

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...

Decisions
Fish and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-020
1992-020

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-020:Fish and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-020 PDF465 KB...

Decisions
Ross and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-040
1992-040

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-040:Ross and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-040 PDF441. 51 KB...

Decisions
Growth Through Moderation Society Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-057
1992-057

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-057:Growth Through Moderation Society Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-057 PDF229. 81 KB...

Decisions
Bradstock and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-073
1992-073

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-073:Bradstock and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-073 PDF595. 61 KB...

Decisions
Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-087
1992-087

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-087:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-087 PDF842. 45 KB...

Decisions
Quayle and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2013-072
2013-072

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

Decisions
Coffey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-005
1991-005

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-005:Coffey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-005 PDF573. 48 KB...

Decisions
Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-022
1991-022

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-022:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-022 PDF421. 83 KB...

Decisions
Thai Community and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-039
1991-039

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-039:Thai Community and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-039 PDF...

Decisions
Hamilton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-004
1990-004

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-004:Hamilton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-004 PDF736. 19 KB...

Decisions
DP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2014-058
2014-058

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A repeat broadcast of an episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the surviving driver that the repeat broadcast, without his consent, breached his privacy. The complainant signed a consent form, and the timeline between the accident and the repeat broadcast more than four years later, in the absence of any further objections from him, suggested that he gave his consent freely, and not under duress. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The crash occurred on 4 December 2009, and the episode subject to complaint – a repeat broadcast – screened on 24 May 2014 on TV ONE....