Showing 1281 - 1300 of 1473 results.
Complaint60 Minutes – sex tourist trade in Thailand – breasts exposed – offensive behaviour – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – not unsuitable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – warning sufficed to comply – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV One on 12 November 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm examined the exploitation of young women in the sex industry in Thailand. It examined the attitudes of a group of Australian men who went to Thailand for sex holidays. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that a scene where a young woman exposed her breasts was offensive and inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children were likely to be watching television. He also complained about some night club scenes where women were seen "gyrating"....
Complaint Mo Show – interview with makers of and participants in a pornographic film – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – gratuitous sexual activities – uphold Standard 9 – not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The making of a pornographic film near Los Angeles was shown in a segment of the Mo Show broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on Tuesday 3 September 2002. The Mo Show is targeted at a young adult audience and features two New Zealand comedians presenting events they encounter in a number of countries, focusing on popular music and film. [2] Lois Durward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment about pornographic film-making near Los Angeles was offensive and unsuitable for younger viewers....
ComplaintSpace – interview with rock group Pantera – language – fuck – motherfucker – offensive – standard G2 upheld by broadcaster – warning acknowledged as inadequate – action taken to improve warnings FindingsDecline to determine – s. 11(b) – attempt by complainant to re-litigate conviction for use of obscene language under Telecommunications Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "Pantera", a heavy metal band, was interviewed on Space which was broadcast on TV2 on 11 May 2001 starting at 10. 25pm. Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language in a programme aimed at young people was obscene. In response, TVNZ noted that the interview included the words "fuck" and "motherfucker". It referred to the programme’s AO rating and time of broadcast, and said that the language used was part of the "Pantera persona"....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – news item reported on death of motorcyclist on racing track – included footage of the accident – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was brief and shot from a distance – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at approximately 7. 05am on Monday 6 September, reported on the death of a motorcyclist. The news reader stated, “In sport, there’s been an horrific death in the 250cc section of the Moto GP in San Marino. Japanese rider Shoya Tomizawa on the red bike was killed after being hit by two others in this incident. The other two riders escaped serious injury....
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the use of ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation in an episode of Shortland Street. The complaint was the use of ‘Jesus’ in this way disrespected New Zealanders who use that name only in prayer. The Authority acknowledged the complainant, and others in the community, find the language used offensive. However, as it has previously determined, the use of variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations did not threaten community standards of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency ...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-084:Atkinson and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-084 PDF309. 13 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-060:Kirby and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-060 PDF490. 32 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-119:Miller and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1993-119 PDF437. 15 KB...
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item during a Newstalk ZB news bulletin featured an interview with Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder. The newsreader introduced the item by saying, ‘Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder believes their loss to the Highlanders is the kick up the backside they need. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘kick up the backside’ was rude, alluded to indecent assault and sexual abuse, and offended ‘community standards’. A ‘kick up the backside’ is a common, colloquial expression in New Zealand, meaning an unwelcome event or action that unexpectedly motivates or inspires. The expression would be well-known to listeners, who would not associate it with indecent or sexual assault. Therefore its use in this context did not threaten standards of good taste and decency....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Classic Hits Breakfast Show the hosts played an audio clip from an American talk show, of a celebrity discussing his sex life before he got married. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards of good taste and decency, taking into account the context, including the station’s target audience of 35 to 54-year-olds, and that the content was consistent with audience expectations of breakfast radio shows. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During the Classic Hits Breakfast Show the hosts played an audio clip from an American talk show, of a celebrity discussing his sex life before he got married. The item aired at 8. 10am on Friday 4 April 2014....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order Introduction [1] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged ‘bullying, deception and targeting the vulnerable’. It was reported that the Israeli women staffing the kiosks were working illegally, without work permits. The item was broadcast on TV3 on 1 July 2014....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a Swedish historian and author. During the interview, the presenter allegedly quoted former Finance Minister, Sir Roger Douglas. At the end of the item, the presenter also read out negative and critical comments from listeners about the interview. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s statement, allegedly attributed to Sir Roger Douglas, was inaccurate, and that reading out the comments received was offensive. The statement was not a material point of fact in the context of the item and would not have affected listeners’ understanding of the item as a whole, which was focused on the views and work of the interviewee. Further, listeners were unlikely to have understood the statement to be a direct quote from the former Finance Minister, and would not have been misled....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of a weekly mixed martial arts championship highlights and commentary programme, MMA: One Championship Weekly, was broadcast on TVNZ DUKE at 8. 30am on Saturday 15 April 2017. The primary focus of the episode was a build-up to an upcoming match between Eduard Foyalang and Ev Ting scheduled for 21 April 2017. The episode profiled each of the fighters with reference to their backgrounds and family life. It also included 5-6 minute clips of their previous fights against other opponents. Mr Dandy complained that the use of footage from MMA fights was offensive and inappropriate to broadcast at a time when children may be watching television unsupervised....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show. The comment was within audience expectations of the host's well-known style of presentation and humour, and unlikely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers in the context of a news and current affairs programme aimed at adults. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During a segment on Paul Henry the host referred to those involved in the Flag Consideration Project as a 'bunch of twats'. [2] Iain Wiseman complained that the use of the word 'twat' was inappropriate for a breakfast show when children were likely to be watching....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-036:Wortelboer and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-036 PDF281. 68 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-094:Clyne and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-094 PDF377. 3 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-022:Cole and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-022 PDF274. 08 KB...
ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....