Showing 781 - 800 of 2205 results.
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s Interests Introduction [1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of Seven Sharp included a short round-up of things that had recently ‘caught the attention’ of the presenters, including cheese ‘made of milk with human toe jam and belly button bacteria’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was offensive and breached standards of good taste and decency. While some viewers would have found the subject matter unpleasant and distasteful, it did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency to an extent which breached the standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] An episode of Seven Sharp included a short round-up of things that had recently ‘caught the attention’ of the presenters. Commenting on a picture of a round of cheese, one presenter said: This cheese might look delicious – like a good aged brie perhaps. Wrong....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-001:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-001 PDF280. 04 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-016:Hon Richard Prebble MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-016 PDF2. 82 MB...
Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – news items discussed identity of a deceased teenager, despite being informed in the programme that police were not releasing the deceased’s name in accordance with a request from his family – disclosure of deceased’s identity allegedly in breach of his family’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – deceased’s family identified through their connection with him – no private facts revealed because deceased’s identity had already been disclosed on social networking sites so was in the public realm, even if not officially confirmed by police – broadcaster took steps, as soon as reasonably practicable, to ensure the deceased was not named again in the programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-089:Smith and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-089 PDF263. 7 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-096:McKay and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-096 PDF359. 24 KB...
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two items on Seven Sharp contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the items were inappropriate in a prime time news and current affairs slot. Both items were clearly intended to be humorous rather than titillating, and would not have been unduly offensive or unexpected for regular viewers, given the programme’s mix of serious news, banter and entertainment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] Two items on Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, contained sexualised imagery and innuendo. The first item, broadcast on 7 October 2013, included footage of a man’s YouTube parody of Miley Cyrus’ raunchy performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. The man was shown dancing provocatively around a toilet bowl wearing a bikini made out of glad-wrap....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-035: Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-035 PDF237. 41 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-149:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Alcohol Healthwatch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-149 PDF487. 39 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-169:Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-169 PDF406. 94 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-096–097:Sharp and Leonard-Taylor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-096, 1993-097987. 7 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-127:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-127 PDF215. 44 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-051:Pownall and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-051 PDF483. 04 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-063:Milnes and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-063 PDF445. 85 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-081:Collier and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-081 PDF261. 39 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-011:Town and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-011 PDF499. 97 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-021:New Zealand Fishing Industry Association and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-021 PDF916. 23 KB...
Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – language – “fuck you” – allegedly offensive – warning requiredFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – warning not necessary – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Spooks is a BBC drama series built around the activities of a fictional counter-terrorism unit attached to MI5. MI5 is the government agency responsible for internal security. In an episode beginning at 9. 30pm broadcast on TV One on 24 February 2004, one character said to another “fuck you”. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive and the programme should have been preceded with a warning. Standards [3] TVNZ assessed the complaint under Standard 1 and Guidelines 1a and 1b of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....