Showing 1901 - 1920 of 1956 results.
The relevant contextual factors we have considered in this case include: the nature of The DailyMail TV, a tabloid entertainment programme that may feature third party or viral footage, often presented in a sensationalised manner the graphic and disturbing nature of the stories presented, which featured violent and distressing themes and sexual material use of some masking tools such as pixelation and blurring the presenter’s voiceover, which despite blurring of images, provided a detailed narrative
As for balance, TVNZ said the argument for and against in the specific instance wereadvanced by the parties and the issue of pregnancy in several different situations hadbeen dealt with on several occasions during 700 episodes. Indeed, TVNZ added: In its effort to reflect widely on New Zealand society, it was appropriate that at some point it should represent a woman choosing to have a termination.
Category 2 footage [27] Without preferring either party’s version of events (regarding where and when the footage was obtained), we find that the use of the footage filmed in 2007 did not amount to a breach of privacy.
It considered that “within this relatively brief item” significant views were sufficiently referred to or would be sufficiently referred to in other reports within the period of current interest, which would remain open and ongoing for some time. [15] TVWorks noted that the “time given to each competing party did not have to be mathematically balanced” and that Mr Campbell had made reference to “global warming deniers”, which acknowledged alternative perspectives on the issue.
He wrote:TVNZ is well aware that this matter was taken right to the brink of High Courtaction prior to the TVNZ Director of Production agreeing to edit the programme -an offer which was overruled.He concluded:The clip of me was filmed over 12 months prior to the screening when no problemof the association of my likeness and name in a national broadcast existed.
It quoted the opening sequence, filmed on Australia’s Gold Coast, as follows: Commentator: Manpower Australia is the most successful male revue in the world because of this man, Billy Cross.Billy Cross: This is where I did my first strip about twelve years ago, and now I own it.Commentator: And now he’s coming to New Zealand to begin a national strip-search for Kiwi men. [20] In TVNZ’s view, what the series was about was "encapsulated
They argued that this was necessary to send a message that serious breaches of broadcasting standards that have such significant personal and financial impact on other parties will result in significant consequences for the broadcaster. Legal Costs [117] The complainants sought an order for 100 percent of their legal costs totalling $28,068.75.
‘Both parties filed mechanics reports, but they were so different the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal did its own assessment. But even those findings were mixed. So how would the fight play out? Universal Imports won on some points and [X] took out some others, but in the end, the tribunal ruled in [X’s] favour. Universal Imports had to take back the car and pay her $3300.’
In this light, the request for costs ‘is an attempt to prevent Mr Winchcombe raising legitimate complaints’ concerning his presentation in the documentary.Our analysis[34] Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act empowers the Authority to award reasonable costs to ‘any party’ as it thinks fit, however the Authority may only award such costs against the complainant if it considers the complaint is (relevantly):17 frivolous vexatious or ‘one that ought not to have been made’. [35] Since 2002, the Authority
We now turn to discuss whether the broadcaster gave him a reasonable opportunity to comment in the item. [39] Based on the information provided by the parties, we consider that the following events are relevant in determining whether reasonable efforts were made by TVNZ: 19 August: the programme’s producer phoned and left a message for the manager of the medical centre to phone her back.
It invited submissions from the parties on orders.
It should be noted the Authority has accepted that intrusive filming in a public place may amount to a breach (Decision No: 2000-143, 12 October 2000).The complainant insisted that her friends had explicitly told the camera operator not to film. [47] The Authority is unable to resolve the privacy complaint because of the conflicting accounts concerning the request not to film which were made to the camera operator by the complainant and her friends, and the later discussion between the parties about
Guidelines4a Programmes which deal with political matters, current affairs, and questions of a controversial nature, must show balance and impartiality. 4b No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial public issues.
We invited submissions on orders from the parties. [51] CP did not make any submissions on orders, other than requesting that TVWorks remove the episode from its website.
Broadcast [1] On TV One at 6pm on 15 and 16 May 2008, One News reported on the ease of purchasing ingredients needed to manufacture methamphetamine or ‘P’, within a wider context of discussing the policies being proposed by political parties during election year on how they intended to combat drugs and New Zealand’s ‘P’ problem. [2] On 15 May, One News reporter Lisa Owen conducted a hidden camera report in two dairies in the Northland town of Moerewa.
Guidelines 4a Programmes which deal with political matters, current affairs, and questions of a controversial nature, must show balance and impartiality. 4b No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present all significant sides in as fair a way as possible, it being acknowledged that this can be done only by judging each case on its merits.
G20 No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present all significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can only be done by judging each case on its merits. TVNZ noted that Ms Fakaosi had not challenged the truth and accuracy of the storyoverall.
The papers printed in the Bulletinexpressed a concern that the publicity which surrounded false memory – especiallythat arising from criminal trials – did not drown out either a concern about the sexualabuse of children or the reality of recovered memory in some instances.The magazine published a "consensus" statement from an American PsychologicalAssociation Working Party on Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse.
be widely considered challenging and controversial, the issue for us to consider is whether, having decided to interview Mr Brenner and to broadcast some of that interview, MediaWorks treated him fairly.[22] We note the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to public figures and people who are familiar with dealing with the media is higher than for a layperson or someone unfamiliar with the media.4 While Mr Brenner may not be widely known to the public, as per the parties
It said the reporter was never asked if the camera was recording or to turn it off, nor asked to leave the property.[25] We have carefully considered both parties' arguments as well as further information requested by us, and have reached the view that overall the broadcast did not amount to a highly offensive intrusion into Mr Stedfast's or Mr Temple's interest in solitude or seclusion. Our reasoning follows.Did Mr Stedfast and Mr Temple have a reasonable expectation of solitude and seclusion?