Showing 1321 - 1340 of 2203 results.
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Rotten Shame – investigated systematic failures in the building industry that led to the leaky homes crisis – reporter door-stepped building inspector who had inspected a house eleven years earlier which had since been demolished – portion of the interview included in the programme – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr George by door-stepping him was unfair – broadcaster’s action in upholding the complaint and apologising to the complainant in its decision was inadequate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – other aspects of the programme were not unfair to the complainant – item focused on systematic failures which led to the leaky homes crisis rather than on the…...
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item did not sufficiently include balancing comment. The item presented a number of comments in support of the beneficiaries, and it was clear the interviewees were offering their own opinion, which is not subject to standards of accuracy. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The item featured Social Development Minister Paula Bennett explaining the rationale for restricting beneficiaries’ overseas travel and expressing disappointment with the latest statistics. The item also included comment from Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei and Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesman Alastair Russell....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-017:Buck and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-017 PDF361. 78 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-007:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-007 PDF322. 28 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-126:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-126 PDF420. 11 KB...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-043 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the British police drama series Happy Valley depicted the murder of a police officer by one of the main characters. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the incident and aftermath constituted 'over the top' graphic violence. The visual depiction of the violence was not gratuitous and was mostly implied or occurred off-screen. The level of violence was not unacceptable or unexpected in an AO-rated police drama series, and was justified by the narrative context. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence Introduction[1] An episode of the British police drama series Happy Valley depicted the murder of a police officer by main character Tommy Lee Royce. The police officer was shown being hit once by a vehicle driven by Tommy and it was implied she was then run over by the vehicle a second time....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Police Ten 7 – “Bad boys” episode looked at “bad boys’ most memorable moments” – contained coarse language and nudity which were censored – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – content would not have been unexpected in a long-running reality series about the work of the police – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme preceded by clear warning advising parental guidance – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the…...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Coronation Street – broadcast during Breakfast – contained brief image of a woman slapping a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – shot of woman slapping a man’s face was very brief – Breakfast was unclassified and targeted at adults – promo unobjectionable in this context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Breakfast was aimed at adults and any children viewing were unlikely to be doing so unsupervised – promo would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of High Country Rescue, a man with a broken leg expressed his gratitude to a search and rescue team, saying, ‘it would have been a frigging long hopping walk to the hut’. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the word ‘frigging’ was offensive and inappropriate for the timeslot. The complainant has made many complaints about language at the low end on the spectrum of offensiveness, and the Authority’s previous decisions ought to have put him on notice of the likely outcome of this complaint. Declined to determine: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During an episode of High Country Rescue, a man with a broken leg expressed his gratitude to Land Search and Rescue workers, saying, ‘I really appreciate your help… it would have been a frigging long hopping walk to the hut....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....
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. 1991-022:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-022 PDF421. 83 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-058:Shepherd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-058 PDF323. 74 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party that included the statement, ‘Together we went hard and early to fight COVID. . . ’ The complaint was that this statement breached broadcasting standards because it should have said the Labour Party ‘went hard and late’, on the basis it could have taken ‘some action at the border’ earlier than it did, to protect New Zealanders. The Authority found the statement was clearly opinion and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than a statement of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. There was no actual or potential harm caused, 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....
The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of exclamations including ‘oh my God’, ‘holy crap’ and ‘bloody’ in an episode of House Rules, broadcast at 7. 30pm, breached the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the language used would not have caused audiences undue offence or harm and it was not beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...
The Authority has declined to determine three complaints about different programmes broadcast on TVNZ channels on 4 July 2022 as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, and other issues raised have recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive & Disturbing Content; Discrimination & Denigration...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: Did Mark Lundy Kill His Wife and Daughter?...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Embarrassing Bodies – episode focusing on vaginas broadcast at 8. 30pm – close-up shots of women’s vaginas and surgical operations – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme had educational value – clear pre-broadcast warning for nudity and medical scenes – nudity was non-sexual and matter-of-fact – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and preceded by adequate warning – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – clear warning and signposting of likely content gave parents an opportunity to exercise discretion – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....