Search Rapua

Search Decisions
Broadcast Information
Codes and Standards
Date Range
Showing 601 - 620 of 2185 results.
SORT BY
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
Seymour and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2012-082
2012-082

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included Colmar Brunton poll results on the percentage of party votes for major political parties – results did not take account of “undecided voters” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – omission of undecided voters not material given the focus and context of the item which was the decline in the level of support for the National Party – potential harm in terms of impact on voter participation was not significant given the length of time until next general election – viewers would not have been misled in any material respect – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Decisions
Bloem and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2014-132
2014-132

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Vote 2014 which covered the results of the 2014 general election, used the terms 'jeez', 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus' as exclamations. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of these terms was offensive and inappropriate. The Authority has consistently recognised that the colloquial use of variations of 'Jesus' as an exclamation to express irritation, dismay or surprise is increasingly common and widely accepted. The use of the words in this context, during live coverage of an important political event, did not threaten standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During Vote 2014, comprising five hours of live coverage of the results of the 2014 general election, one of the hosts used the terms 'jeez' and 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus'....

Decisions
Forbes, on behalf of the Children's Television Foundation, and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-007
1990-007

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-007:Forbes (on behalf of the Children's Television Foundation) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-007 PDF463. 42 KB...

Decisions
Burrows and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2014-023
2014-023

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence in Christchurch following the earthquakes. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that re-enactments showing domestic violence denigrated men and were ‘gender biased’. The Authority has previously declined to uphold a similar complaint from the complainant, which ought to have put him notice of the likely outcome of this decision. The re-enactments were visual wallpaper only, and the gender of the actors was not material. Declined to determine: Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction[1] A One News item discussed increased rates of domestic violence over the Christmas period in Christchurch, observed in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes. The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 20 December 2013....

Decisions
Minister of Customs (Hon Murray McCully) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-163
1993-163

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-163:Minister of Customs (Hon Murray McCully) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-163 PDF325. 12 KB...

Decisions
Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-043
1992-043

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-043:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-043 PDF315. 9 KB...

Decisions
Meroiti and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-098
1992-098

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-098:Meroiti and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-098 PDF258. 04 KB...

Decisions
Collins and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-052
1991-052

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-052:Collins and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-052 PDF521. 77 KB...

Decisions
Malley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-046
1993-046

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-046:Malley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-046 PDF446. 44 KB...

Decisions
Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104
1993-104

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-104:Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104 PDF313. 81 KB...

Decisions
Scott and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2018-088 (18 December 2018)
2018-088

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item, reporting on a national hikoi against the use of 1080, was unbalanced. The item focused on claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Forest & Bird that the increased protest activity was resulting in a rise in threats to staff. The Authority recognised that the item addressed a controversial issue of public importance and found that it pointed to significant viewpoints on this issue, with comment sought from the hikoi organiser, as well as representatives from DOC, Forest & Bird and the Minister of Conservation. The issue was also widely reported in other news media, during the period of current interest, with viewers therefore likely to be aware of the main perspectives on this narrow issue associated with the 1080 debate....

Decisions
Malone and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2019-099 ( 7 April 2020)
2019-099

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘synthetic cannabis’ in a 1 News segment that reported on these products and their likely link to a number of deaths breached the accuracy or programme information standards. The Authority cited a recent decision where it found that while these products do not contain actual cannabis, the term ‘synthetic cannabis’ is commonly used to describe them and is unlikely to mislead viewers. Therefore, the Authority did not consider it likely viewers would be significantly misinformed by its use in this broadcast. The Authority also did not identify any breaches of the programme information standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Programme Information...

Decisions
PK and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2020-149 (16 March 2021)
2020-149

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item reference to a New Conservative Party policy of ‘repealing gay marriage’ was inaccurate. The Authority found the statement was not inaccurate or misleading, in light of the party’s advertised marriage policy. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Decisions
Wong & Soper and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2020-177 (22 June 2021)
2020-177

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an item on 1 News that reported on protests in Washington DC in opposition to the results of the United States Presidential election. The complaints were the item’s description of the Proud Boys as a ‘white supremacist’ group was inaccurate because its leader, Enrique Tarrio, is African-Cuban and it is an ‘American chauvinist’ rather than a white supremacist group. Mr Soper also complained the item’s descriptions of Joe Biden as President-Elect, before his confirmation by the Electoral College, and of voter fraud claims as unproven, were unbalanced and inaccurate because Mr Biden’s election had not been confirmed and there was substantial evidence of voter fraud. The Authority found use of the term ‘white supremacist’ was distinguishable as analysis and opinion, to which the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply....

Decisions
Gee and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1995-087
1995-087

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LESLIE GEE of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Decisions
James and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1995-147
1995-147

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 147/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M JAMES of Raglan Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Decisions
Mudford and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1995-036
1995-036

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 36/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B A MUDFORD of Matamata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

Decisions
Middlemiss and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1996-128
1996-128

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-128 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANET MIDDLEMISS of Featherston Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Decisions
Bernie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2002-020
2002-020

ComplaintWeddings: Happily Ever After? – update on some couples who appeared in Weddings – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – consent form for footage from Weddings – subsequent information freely given – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Weddings: Happily Ever After? was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2001. The programme reported on the state of the relationships of some of the couples who had appeared on previous episodes of Weddings. [2] Kylie and Simon Bernie, one of the couples, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme had breached standards relating to privacy. Mr and Mrs Bernie maintained that they had not consented to the inclusion of information about them or their baby daughter in the programme....

1 ... 30 31 32 ... 110