Showing 1881 - 1900 of 2203 results.
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – guest presenter commented, in relation to web video of children’s television presenter Roger Waters, “suddenly there’s LSD in the water” – allegedly in breach of law and order, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – presenter’s comment was brief and light-hearted – viewers would not have been encouraged to break the law – children would not have understood the comment – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comment would not have distressed or alarmed viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – comment was silly and oblique – children would not have appreciated its meaning, and would not have been encouraged to take LSD – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on verdict in Ewen McDonald murder trial – reporter commented, “You could well be thinking, if he’s not guilty, why hasn’t he walked out these doors behind me and spoken to media?...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during One News – characters used the terms “balls”, “arse” and “bastard” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language of a low level – One News aimed at adult audience – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting the promo during One News – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, was broadcast on TV One between 6pm and 7pm on Wednesday 24 August 2011, during One News which was unclassified....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-044:Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-044 PDF609. 76 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-166–167:Bardwell and Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-166, 1993-167 PDF496. 64 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-060–062:Sharp, Nelson and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-060, 1992-061, 1992-062 PDF858. 38 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-056:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-056 PDF444. 91 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-101:McElroy and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-101 PDF468. 14 KB...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-160 Dated the 21st day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SIEGFRIED BAUER of Raetihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R TUNNICLIFF of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the upcoming flag referendum and featured an interview with an Australian advocate for changing the flag. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that presenter Mike Hosking ‘encouraged the New Zealand public to vote a certain way by reiterating his own prejudices and then using an Australian broadcaster to support his own views’. While Mr Hosking made his view in support of changing the flag known, the alternative view was adequately presented during the item. Given the widespread coverage of the flag referendum, viewers could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant perspectives on the issue, and would not have been deceived or disadvantaged as a result of this item. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp discussed the upcoming flag referendum....
ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenter said there was a “wind chill factor well below zero in several states” in America – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint vexatious and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 December 2010, reported that “severe winter storms are still causing havoc closing airports and delaying flights across America. Snow, ice and a wind chill factor well below zero in several states, plus violent tornadoes in others, are testing the Christmas patience of thousands of travellers....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item covered the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court explaining how his relationship with Ms Elliott began – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of relationship were not sufficiently explicit to require a warning – high degree of public interest – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – deceased person not an “individual” for the purposes of Broadcasting Act 1989 – privacy standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 9 July 2009, covered the day’s events at the trial of Clayton Weatherston, who was accused of murdering Sophie Elliott....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – language in interview with chef Gordon Ramsay – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching unsupervised – Gordon Ramsay famous for use of bad language so not unexpected – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Monday 23 June 2008, the programme’s host interviewed Gordon Ramsay, a well-known and hot-tempered chef. During the interview, the host asked him, “So no swearing at home then? ” Mr Ramsay replied that although he and his family did not swear at home, he could not stop his children hearing swear words at school in the playground, and his eight-year-old son had recently been taught the word “wanker” by his schoolmates....
SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-012 Dated the 8th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-018 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUE WHITE of Lake Hawea Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-032 Dated the 10th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J R BOWEN of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-074 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by E A HAWKER of Piha Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...