Showing 581 - 587 of 587 results.
BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 121/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS MORGAN of Kihikihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J R Morris (Acting Chairperson) L M Loates W J Fraser...
ComplaintHolmes – research findings on third generation contraceptive pill – danger to women of blood clotting – presenter told users to throw their pills away – inaccurate – unbalanced – caused unnecessary panic, alarm FindingsStandard G1 – no inaccuracy – no upholdStandard G6 – key issues isolated – opportunity for response given – majority no upholdStandard G16 – health message presented – focus on individual stories – style of programme – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The release of research findings detailing the risks to women of taking the third generation contraceptive pill was the topic of a Holmes item broadcast on 16 June between 7. 00-7. 30pm. The presenter suggested that those who were taking several named varieties of the pills should throw them out....
Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Mummy Returns – PGR – promo broadcast during Going Straight between 7. 30pm and 8. 30pm – broadcast the following day at 6. 43pm during 3 News – promo allegedly broadcast too early – promo allegedly incorrectly classified Findings Standard 7 (appropriate classification) – promo appropriately classified PGR – not upheld Standard 7 (compliance with classification band) and Guideline 7b (i) Going Straight is PGR time – not upheld (ii) 3 News (although itself unclassified) is in G time-band PGR – promo did not comply with classification band – upheld Standard 9 (children¹s interests) and Guideline 9a broadcaster considered children¹s interests in rating promo PGR – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-026:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-026 PDF306. 1 KB...