Showing 1921 - 1940 of 1956 results.
The Authority had little hesitation in deciding that the surreptitious filming of a discussion in which one party believed that she was being asked only to take part in an interview about a highly sensitive matter was in the nature of prying and would have been offensive to the ordinary person under principle (iii).Moreover, as Mrs S was in her own back yard while the surreptitious filming was occurring, the exceptions in the standard about being observed, followed or photographed in a public place
It invited submissions from the parties. [53] TVNZ submitted that an order was inappropriate. The broadcaster noted that the Authority had accepted that Mr Carapiet’s second comment was open to interpretation, and that it assumed viewer knowledge of meat and dairy products as New Zealand’s major food exports. TVNZ also noted the Authority’s view that Mr Carapiet had participated actively in the debate.
Six weeks is not long to see your loved ones on national television dead in a car and dead on the side of the road. This has been one of the most heartbreaking, painful experiences in my life, and my family's lives. I feel showing this programme has taken away our rights as a family and Carl and Jake's rights for privacy and respect.
Statement that HDL to total cholesterol ratio should always be 4.5 or less; participant’s had fallen from 5.1 to 4.1. [17] NZDA agreed that the ratio should be 4.5 or less as recommended by the New Zealand National Heart Foundation. However, that ratio was calculated as total cholesterol to HDL, not the other way around.
Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No 2022-005, at [12]12 See Carapiet and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No 2022-033 for a similar finding13 See NZDSOS Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No 2022-005, at [16]14 Guideline 9d15 Medsafe “Adverse reactions to Medicines” (22 May 2022) <medsafe.govt.nz>16NZDSOS Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No 2022-005, at [21]17 Health Direct “Hormone replacement theory” (accessed 3 October 2022) <healthdirect.govt.au>18 National
This is a serious intrusion on the proper administration of justice, and the Adjudicative Committee agrees with the submissions that had such actions taken place within the purview of the Courts, the parties responsible for those comments would likely be facing serious consequences. 36. The Adjudicative Committee also observes that Newshub, as an established and respected member of the media landscape, would be expected to be very familiar with Court reporting protocols and guidelines.
In relation to TRN’s claim that, as the peace process had yet to resume, Mr Sharon and the Likud party had killed it, the Council said the broadcaster had not attempted to refute the points provided in the initial complaint which demonstrated why the presenter’s assertion was unfounded. The complainant said the broadcaster had similarly dismissed the complaint under Principle 7 with "no attempt to deal with the issues set out."
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 be done only by judging every case on its merits. The Broadcaster's ResponseThe details of the complaint and the broadcaster's response are presented in theAppendix.
General Comments by the Majority [46] Notwithstanding the fact that we have not heard the full broadcast, we the majority feel that the submissions from the parties have given us sufficient information to make some general comments about the notion of the “Hug-a-Ginga Day” promotion. [47] We note at the outset that the origin of this idea was an episode of South Park which inspired a “Kick-a-Ginga Day” group on the Facebook website,1 and in our view the current promotion still carries those undertones
Moreover, she wrote, the police had made a statement to the station in theweek before the broadcast that there had been no Council involvement in Mr Fuller'sclaim.Ms Taylor-Dean considered that the broadcast, in addition to breaching her privacy,breached the standards relating to accuracy, fairness to the parties referred to, andbalance.Describing the accusations in the broadcast as extremely serious, Ms Taylor-Deansaid that the broadcast had serious implications for her.
Damian attached information from a study on the influence of virgin coconut oil on blood coagulation factors, lipid levels and LDL oxidation in cholesterol-fed Sprague-Dawley rats.1 [49] Having considered the information provided by both parties, it is clear to the Authority that Damian's advice about coconut oil is contrary to mainstream medical opinion.
It therefore declines to make any order inthis respect.Turning to the initial correspondence between the parties, the Authority notes thatthe station manager, in writing, acknowledged that the jokes were neither funny nor ingood taste, and advised that the presenters had been reprimanded. That tends tosupport Mr Yee's submission that the station upheld the complaint that standard R2was breached.
Broadcast [1] On the morning of 26 August 2008, several items on Radio New Zealand National discussed the fact that SKY Television had secured the broadcasting rights in New Zealand for both the upcoming winter and summer Olympic Games. [2] A news item broadcast during the Morning Report programme at 6.04am reported that Television New Zealand Ltd had said that "the Beijing Olympic Games may have been the last people can watch without paying for a subscription".
It maintained that, “That is not the case here; the broadcaster made a genuine human error and tried hard to put it right by apologising.”[67] TVWorks concluded that in these circumstances any further penalty beyond the publication of the decision would be disproportionate.Authority’s decision on orders[68] Having considered the parties’ submissions on orders, we are of the view that an order requiring TVWorks to broadcast a statement summarising the upheld aspects of our decision is appropriate
We invited submissions on orders from the parties. [62] MA submitted that TVNZ should be ordered to pay the maximum of $5000 compensation to him and that, in terms of fining the broadcaster, the Authority was “best qualified” to determine whether this was appropriate, and if so, in what amount. [63] TVNZ submitted that an order for costs was not appropriate on this occasion and that publication of the decision was penalty enough. [64] Having upheld the privacy complaint on the basis that
We invited submissions on orders from the parties. Complainants’ Submissions on Orders The Binnies’ submissions on orders [54] The Binnies submitted that TVWorks should be ordered to broadcast a statement summarising the Authority’s decision and apologising for breaching broadcasting standards. They also considered that the broadcaster should be ordered to pay $5,000 costs to the Crown.
Comments in the programme sent a message the customer’s actions were unacceptable. [56] Taking the above factors, previous decisions and the parties’ submissions into account, particularly TVNZ’s intention to issue an apology and treat this as a learning opportunity, we consider that the publication of this decision is sufficient to publicly notify the breach of the accuracy standard and to censure the broadcaster.
He says both [A] and [B] are clients of a third party and legal proceedings are under way. Mr Gough says [C]’s medals were originals when they left him. He says he filed a police complaint about that and a statutory declaration. [42] During the 30 May broadcast, the reporter said: In response to last week’s programme, we received this statement from Owen Gough [holding statement up]. He denies swapping any medals for fakes.
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 be done only by judging every case on its merits. Breach of verbal agreement Waitemata Health began its complaint by alleging that TV3 had breached a verbal agreement concerning an interview with Waitemata Health’s General Manager (Bette Kill).
TVNZ did not deny that balance was required, but submitted that the standard requiring balance was not breached where, as in this case, a party was given every opportunity to comment but refused to do so. Further, it submitted that there was a strong public interest element to the story and that this would not have been served if Holmes had abandoned the story because SilkRoutes refused to put its side of the story.