Showing 741 - 760 of 1399 results.
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge Afternoons with Guy, Sharyn and Clint the hosts ran a segment called ‘Shaz Dog’s Love Shack’, where listeners could text and call in to ask for advice on love and relationships. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that ‘a discussion of sexual positions’ breached standards. The segment was consistent with the style of content and humour regularly broadcast on The Edge, and was unlikely to surprise or offend the target audience of 15- to 39-year-olds. Most of the content was in the nature of sexual innuendo and would have gone over the heads of younger listeners....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A Seven Sharp item reporting on a forecast increase in New Zealand’s rat, mice and stout population due to a beech mast event, contained footage of 1080 pellets and an aerial 1080 drop. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced because it did not present the anti-1080 viewpoint. The item’s focus was not the use of 1080 so it was not necessary to put forward views for and against its use, but in any case the broadcaster alluded to three earlier items on this specific beech mast event which did refer to alternative views....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 120/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by TWILIGHT PROMOTIONS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SPECTRUM of Nelson Broadcaster BAYS TELEVISION LIMITED of Nelson J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-035 Decision No: 1998-036 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION (Wanganui Conservancy) and W F CARLIN of Wanganui Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 96/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W I G FOUNTAIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 85/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-073 Dated the 11th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed former SIS agent about its operation in the 1970s involving Dr William Sutch and representatives of the Soviet Embassy – former agent said that Dr Sutch had been a spy for 30 years – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements clearly expressions of former agent’s opinion – not facts – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no unfairness to members of Dr Sutch’s family – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Kit Bennetts, a former SIS agent who had obtained High Court approval to publish a book covering aspects of his work, was interviewed on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-099 Decision No: 1996-100 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and IN THE MATTER of complaints by THE NATIONAL COLLECTIVE OF RAPE CRISIS AND RELATED GROUPS OF AOTEAROA INC. and RUBY WOODWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...
ComplaintFair Go – auction of house – sale fell through – house resold to unsuccessful bidder – unreasonable to charge two commissions – unfair – unbalanced Findings(1) Standard G4 – promo – unfair – uphold (2) Standard G4 – items explained issues fairly – no uphold – Standards G6, G7 G11(i) – subsumed No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Fair Go, a consumer advocate programme, is broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 30pm. In the episodes broadcast on 12 and 19 July 2000, it reported that the vendor of a house believed that he had been unfairly charged a second commission by real estate agents after a first sale had fallen through and a subsequent sale had been made. His belief was alluded to in a promo for Fair Go which was broadcast on a number of occasions....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-061 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MURRAY ELSTON of Cromwell Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 54/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 57/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN S WERRY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...
Summary An item on Holmes featured the Alpha Club which, it reported, represented itself as a travel club. The item suggested the club was involved in pyramid selling activities, and included amateur footage of a club meeting, a woman encouraging another person to join the club, and interviews with people who had attended meetings. An Auckland barrister expressed an opinion that he was in "no doubt" that the activities amounted to pyramid selling. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 May 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Mr Price complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, biased and misleading, and that he had suffered financial loss as a result. TVNZ responded that the barrister interviewed was a recognised expert in the field of consumer law....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Graeme Hill Show – included commentary from well-known atheist Pat Condell – Mr Condell made negative statements about religion and those who hold religious beliefs – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues and denigration and discrimination standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – Bill of Rights Act – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked the necessary invective to reach the threshold for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – segment was an opinion piece – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Graeme Hill Show was broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 12. 55pm on Saturday 5 September 2009....
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-168 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-044 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M SCOTT of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at the different road options for Wellington including upgrading State Highway 1 or creating a road through Transmission Gully – stated American army had offered to create the Gully road in 1940s – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) Broadcasting Act 1989 whether Americans made an offer to construct a road through Transmission Gully – item impartial – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item was an update on current situation – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....