Search Rapua

Search Decisions
Broadcast Information
Codes and Standards
Date Range
Showing 1941 - 1955 of 1955 results.
SORT BY
Decisions
Drury and Daisley and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1996-130, 1996-131, 1996-132
1996-130–€“132

There was, however, one area in which both parties agree Mr Drury did not withhold cooperation. This was in relation to his modus operandi as a therapist. The Authority is inclined to agree with Mr Drury that the wisdom or otherwise of his actions could only be understood in the context of his declared therapeutic style, as a conflict between this and a conventional psychiatric model lay at the heart of the matter.

Decisions
Adelphi Finance Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1998-093
1998-093

In all the circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions made by both parties, the Authority declines to award costs to the complainant.

Decisions
Ministry of Health and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2000-030, 2000-031
2000-030–031

The Authority notes that both of these organisations endorsed and supported the Ministry’s submissions, but as they were not parties to the original complaint, the Authority determines that it is not appropriate to admit them to that status at this late stage.The complainant contended that standards G1, G4, G6, G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice were breached.

Decisions
Palmerston North City Council and The Radio Network of New Zealand Ltd - 1997-096, 1997-097, 1997-098
1997-096–098

The call was reported in the national press, but tape evidence is lacking because the station failed to maintain adequate logs. Referring to standard R35 of the Code, the Council observed: The Radio Network of New Zealand Limited admit to having failed to record live news and programme reports from Fitzherbert Avenue for most of the time specified (approximately 9:30am to 4.00pm), blaming a communication failure between Classic Hits early and daytime staff.

Decisions
New Zealand Wheel Clamping Ltd, MacAlpine and Valentic and TVWorks Ltd - 2011-081
2011-081

It is evident from the conflicting authorities presented to us and relied on by the parties, that the legality (or otherwise) of wheel clamping in New Zealand is a complex issue which is fraught with uncertainty.

Decisions
Crossland and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2023-058 (20 November 2023)
2023-058

Russell “Silicosis: How engineered stone is killing tradies” Newsroom (14 March 2023)30 “Product updates: NZ Panels Group moves to replace its engineered stone with low silica alternative” Prime Panels (20 April 2023); Nicholas Jones “Silicosis lung disease: AGB Stone commits to lower-silica engineered stone” The Herald (online ed, 24 July 2023); Jonah Franke-Bowell “Benchtop maker’s high-silica stone ban thought to be an NZ first” The Post (online ed, 24 July 2023); “High-Silica stone banned by only national

Decisions
Muldoon and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1994-112
1994-112

Particularly damning are the views of the party hierarchy, such as SueWood and Barrie Leay.

Decisions
The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2000-036
2000-036

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 Formal Complaint The Tobacco Institute’s complaint about the programme began by setting out several general concerns.

Decisions
Smedley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1994-029, 1994-030
1994-029–030

If the element ofsurprise is combined with unequal television experience and accusations of irresponsible orillegal behaviour, the situation becomes one where the unevenness between the parties isvery marked. In other words, it is a situation which is potentially most unfair andintimidating to the interviewee.

Decisions
Steadman and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2004-189
2004-189

The documents reviewed are easily available to any interested party. Broadcaster’s Response to the Authority [39] TVNZ pointed out that the attachments headed “Factual errors” and “what the viewer should believe” had not earlier been made available to its Complaints Committee despite a specific request for such material.

Decisions
de Hart, Cameron and Cotter and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 2000-108–113
2000-108–113

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 every case on its merits.

Decisions
Pang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2011-026
2011-026

Guidelines 4a No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial issues of public importance. Significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme.

Decisions
Fletcher Homes Ltd and Residential Mortgages Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1998-124, 1998-125, 1998-126, 1998-127
1998-124–127

In a fax dated 24 August, TVNZ referred the Authority to an article in the National Business Review which reported that FHL was still considering whether to take defamation action against TVNZ. In those circumstances, TVNZ advised that it believed the Authority should defer further consideration of the complaint until either there was a resolution of any proceedings issued by FHL against TVNZ, or FHL advised that it would not be issuing such proceedings.

Decisions
Arnesen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1997-100, 1997-101
1997-100–101

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.

Decisions
Rape Prevention Group and 6 Others and SKY Network Television Ltd - 1995-116–1995-125
1995-116–125

The scene is contextually consistent with thepreceding bar scene and provides further graphic illustration of the disintegrationof Detective Curran's character.In response to the complaint, Sky transcribed the dialogue between the parties afterthe event to show that the behaviour was not trivialised and that Dr Garner'sobjections were recorded.Sky also noted as contextual matters that the film was screened at 8.30pm - an adulttime slot - that it was clearly identified as suitable for viewers aged

1 ... 96 97 98