Search

Search Decisions
Broadcast Information
Codes and Standards
Date Range
Showing 141 - 160 of 2205 results.
SORT BY
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
Wylie and Television New Zealand Ltd - ID2011-168
ID2011-168

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 “Breaking News” caption – “breaking news ticker” broadcast during advertisement break stated, “Breaking News. . . Container ship breaks apart. . . Tugs racing to the scene. . . More on One News at 4. 30, 6pm and at tvnz. co. nz” – information inaccurate – question whether the breaking news ticker was a “programme” for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and therefore whether the Authority has jurisdiction to accept the complaint    Findings “Breaking news ticker” consisted predominantly of alphanumeric text and therefore excluded from the definition of “programme” – Authority does not have jurisdiction to accept the complaint This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Decisions
Allan and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2013-010
2013-010

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated – children’s cartoon showed characters kissing and making romantic comments – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming), Standard 9 (children’s interests) – kissing scenes, including dialogue, were innocuous and inexplicit – content was consistent with programme’s G classification – scenes would not have offended most viewers or disturbed or alarmed children, and did not warrant a higher classification of PGR – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated, a well-known children’s cartoon about four teenagers and their talking dog who investigate mysteries involving supposedly supernatural creatures, showed the characters Daphne and Shaggy embraced in a kiss while making romantic remarks....

Decisions
Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-029
1993-029

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-029:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-029 PDF815. 18 KB...

Decisions
McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-080
1993-080

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-080:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-080 PDF332. 98 KB...

Decisions
Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-169
1993-169

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-169:Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-169 PDF406. 94 KB...

Decisions
Cole and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-022
1992-022

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-022:Cole and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-022 PDF274. 08 KB...

Decisions
Mental Health Foundation and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-058
1992-058

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-058:Mental Health Foundation and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-058 PDF307. 63 KB...

Decisions
Toomer and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-078
1992-078

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-078:Toomer and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-078 PDF270. 33 KB...

Decisions
Moore and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2013-093
2013-093

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

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
Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045
1991-045

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

Decisions
Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015
1990-015

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-015:Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015 PDF1008. 74 KB...

Decisions
MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030
1990-030

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Decisions
Right to Life New Zealand Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-023
2015-023

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who is a long-standing voluntary euthanasia campaigner. The item also discussed the history of attempts to legalise voluntary euthanasia in New Zealand and overseas. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item lacked balance. The item did not solely approach voluntary euthanasia from the personal perspective of the interviewee. It included a wider discussion of the voluntary euthanasia debate and law reform that triggered the requirement for presentation of alternative views, which were not presented within the programme or within the period of current interest. Upheld: Controversial Issues No Order  Introduction [1] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who has been a voluntary euthanasia campaigner for the last two decades....

Decisions
Solanki and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-069 (1 December 2015)
2015-069

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Decisions
Govind and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-080 (28 January 2016)
2015-080

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported that an increasing number of beneficiaries were being banned from Work and Income offices due to heightened security as a result of the fatal shootings at a WINZ office in 2014. The reporter interviewed a beneficiary who said that this was ‘no surprise’ because dealing with WINZ is ‘frustrating’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments from the beneficiary were irresponsible and encouraged violence. The focus of the item was on security at WINZ offices and the beneficiary was relating his personal experience; the item did not advocate violence....

Decisions
McCully and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2015-053 (1 March 2016)
2015-053

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News covered ‘the Foreign Minister’s controversial payment of $11. 5 million towards businessman Hmood Al-Ali Al-Khalaf’s Saudi farm’. It reported that Minister Murray McCully had ‘struck the deal to avoid a $30 million legal threat’, but then denied that there had been a legal threat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair to the Minister by failing to distinguish between Mr Al-Khalaf merely assessing his legal position and actually threatening legal action, and consequently misrepresenting the Minister’s position. The issue arose through the use of ambiguous language, both by the broadcaster and by the Minister, and did not justify the Authority upholding a breach of standards....

Decisions
Pereira and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2016-034 (25 July 2016)
2016-034

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of an American sitcom Dr. Ken, Dr Ken met his wife’s successful former boyfriend, Dr Kevin O’Connell, and was jealous. At the end of the episode, Dr O’Connell was portrayed as being drunk and asking Dr Ken’s staff for a lift home. The three staff all replied in unison, ‘I’ll do it! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the scene normalised rape and portrayed rape against men as a ‘laughing matter’. In the context of a fictional sitcom, which was intended to be humorous, the scene did not carry any level of invective, and could not be said to have encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Dr....