Showing 901 - 920 of 1473 results.
SummarySome words which were pronounced in the same way but had different meanings were discussed on the children’s programme You and Me, broadcast on TV3 at about 3. 25pm on 30 July 1998. "Chairs" and "cheers" were given as one such pair. Mr Gibson complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that these words should be pronounced differently, and that the programme’s effort to suggest otherwise breached the standards relating to good taste and balance. In response to the complaint, TV3 did not accept that the good taste standard was in question. As for balance, it said that viewers were advised that the words sounded the same, not that they were pronounced the same, and it declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Gibson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....
Summary A segment in the programme Eurotrash focussed on a "pornography king" and some of his activities. Another segment focussed on a large man whose naked body was treated as a work of art and displayed in some European art galleries. The programme was broadcast on TV4 on 18 February 1999, commencing at 8. 30pm. Ms Gowardman complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that in viewing the segment she was confronted with full frontal and oral sex. The two items depicted shocking and indecent behaviour, and presented young people with incorrect perspectives on adult sexual relationships, she wrote. TV4 responded that the programme was rated AO, and was preceded by a verbal and written warning. The broadcaster denied that the item contained full frontal and oral sex....
Complaint under section 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported that a man had drowned trying to save two children – showed footage of ambulance officers performing CPR and then apologising to the man’s family because they could not revive him – showed family grieving next to the body – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – item included prolonged and close-up footage of grieving family members – offensive intrusion into highly vulnerable and distressing moment – privacy of family members breached – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unclassified news programme aimed at adults – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that two sex scenes in Nip/Tuck were too explicit for free-to-air television and breached standards of good taste and decency. One of the scenes included a threesome involving one of the lead characters. The viewer also complained about the use of offensive language during another scene in which a "phone sex artist" discussed throat surgery with her doctor. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ argued that the scenes were acceptable in the context of an AO-rated programme screening at 9. 30pm with a warning for adult sexual material. The broadcaster said the sex scenes were important to the development of the storyline, did not contain any explicit nudity, and were not pornographic. The Authority’s DecisionAs well as the contextual factors noted above (the programme's AO classification, the warning about sexual content, the 9....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....
Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Trial by Ordeal – documentary – examined three jury trials of John Barlow charged with double murder – questioned fairness in view of the length of the process – interviewed some participants and set up mock jury to hear evidence – allegedly gratuitous murder reconstructions, offensive and unnecessarily violent, and favoured defence over prosecutionFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – opposing perspectives advanced – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) and Guidelines 10b (cumulative effect) and 10f (repeated gratuitously) – reconstructions, while gruesome, were not gratuitous or repeated unnecessarily – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Trial by Ordeal was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 9. 00pm on 12 February 2004....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rome – two episodes contained offensive language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was gratuitous and could have been edited without affecting the storyline – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Two episodes of the historical drama Rome were broadcast on TV One at 10. 25pm on 13 January and at 11. 10pm on 3 February 2008. The 13 January episode contained the following lines: Caesar would’ve fucked Medusa if she’d had a crown. Nice manners, for a whore. Your son will eat shit and die before I make him legal. [I swear] on Juno’s cunt. I am a son of Hades! I fuck Concord in her arse! You can tell your lawyer to shove a taper up his arse and set himself alight....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Game of Two Halves – included woman whipping a man’s partially bare buttocks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 10 (violence) – segment was distasteful and gratuitous but upholding complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Game of Two Halves, a sports quiz show featuring two teams of various sporting personalities, screened on TV One at 9. 45pm on 1 August 2008. The teams were captained by sporting personalities Marc Ellis and Matthew Ridge. [2] At the end of the episode, the captain of the losing team had to undergo what was called the “Studio Forfeit”, in which the opposing team inflicted light-hearted punishment....
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rude Awakenings – scene in which man and woman have sex on a table – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Rude Awakenings was a New Zealand drama series focussing on the lives of neighbouring Ponsonby families. An episode screened at 8. 30pm on Friday 16 February included a scene in which one of the central female characters – who was dissatisfied with her marriage – had sex with her personal trainer on a table. The personal trainer continued to watch sport on television while having sex. [2] The scene was shot from behind the male character, whose naked buttocks were visible. No female nudity was shown....
Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – live news bulletin reported on Christchurch earthquake – included close-up footage and interviews with victims – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – unedited live news item reporting on extraordinary natural disaster – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people shown identifiable – victims vulnerable – however, no interference in nature of prying – public interest – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – unscheduled live news programme – warnings – public interest – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Henry Drive – referring to the name of the show segment, the host stated, “It’s time for our left right shit fight” – guest stated, “As much as this is meant to be a shit fight Sue, you are going to have to find some more subjects that we disagree on” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – low-level language used in a non-aggressive manner and in a robust talkback environment would not have surprised listeners – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Paul Henry Drive show was broadcast on Radio Live between 3pm and 6pm on Monday 20 June 2011....
ComplaintMarathon Man – film – offensive language – warning ought to have been broadcast – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The movie Marathon Man was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on 22 May 2002. [2] Mrs M Charlton complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the movie contained offensive language, and that viewers ought to have been warned about its use. [3] Prime upheld the complaint and apologised to the complainant. It explained that appropriate staff had been reminded of Prime’s collective responsibility "with emphasis placed on not making assumptions on behalf of viewers and that warnings must be specific in nature". [4] Dissatisfied with the action taken in response to her complaint, Mrs Charlton referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on the purchase of a bluefin tuna at auction for nearly one million dollars – item contained footage of fish’s head being removed and a number of tuna being sliced and filleted – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – killing animals for food is a fact of life – images were not gratuitous and would not have offended most viewers in the context of a news item – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – filleting fish did not amount to “violence” for the purposes of the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-101:McElroy and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-101 PDF468. 14 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-078:Toomer and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-078 PDF270. 33 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-011:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-011 PDF516. 75 KB...
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Following news of Kim and Mona Dotcom’s marriage breakup, the Hauraki Breakfast Show featured a satirical interview with a sex therapist. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was offensive and in bad taste, and unsuitable for broadcast at 8. 35am. The content was typical of Radio Hauraki and would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] In the wake of Kim and Mona Dotcom’s marriage break-up, three hosts on the Hauraki Breakfast Show interviewed a ‘sex therapist’ on the issue of what they described as ‘big on small sex’. The ‘sex therapist’ was apparently not a real doctor, but playing the part in a scripted satirical skit. The discussion was broadcast at 8. 35am on Radio Hauraki on 19 May 2014....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....