Showing 81 - 100 of 149 results.
Following Labour’s announcement that any tax changes would not be introduced until after 2020, the advertisement was even more inaccurate. [11] The National Party submitted:Viewers of the advertisement would be under no misapprehension that this was a political campaign advertisement (evidenced by the advertisement’s authorisation and National Party vote message). The purpose of the campaign advertisement was to highlight National Party policy compared to Labour.
This election programme promoted the National Party’s message that it is a ‘unified, positive, and forward-moving team’.
Towards the conclusion of the item the reporter briefly referred to the recent installation of security doors between the Labour and National Party offices at a cost of $30,000. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance on this point.
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision.]A 3 News item reported on National Party candidate Mark Osborne's failure to name all bridges relevant to his campaign promise during the Northland by-election, to convert 10 bridges to two lanes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the editing of the item was unfair to Mr Osborne by creating the impression he was unable to name all 10 bridges.
The subject matter must be an issue 'of public importance', it must be 'controversial' and it must be 'discussed'.3[9] The subject matter discussed in the item was the 'Preventing Family Violence Package' proposed by the National Party to deal with high rates of domestic violence in New Zealand.
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision.]During the National Party's closing address, footage was shown of Prime Minister John Key with US President Barack Obama and the Queen.
The standard exists to ensure that competing arguments are presented to enable a viewer to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.1[7] The complainant argued that Mr Hosking ‘displayed a clear bias’ towards the National Party and ‘deliberately sought to sway the watching New Zealand public… to shut down public discussion on the serious issues revealed in the [book]’.
We do not think it was misleading, in the context of a robust election campaign, for the National Party to analyse the policy costs of other parties or draw attention to them in this advertisement.
Just last week at the National Party conference they of course promised regional roading projects in exchange for votes …’ It also referred to an earlier 3 News item reporting on the 2014 Budget, which described another policy as ‘a shameless bid for centre voters in election year’. [8] We are satisfied that in the context of a robust political environment, particularly in the lead-up to a general election, the reference to Labour’s ‘election year bribe’ was not unfair.
She said Kim Dotcom was not a candidate in the election, and if the advertisement was intended to refer to the Internet Mana Party then it should have used that name. [6] In response, the National Party said the advertisement did not refer to a Dotcom Party, but simply referred to ‘three well known political entities in this campaign’.
Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming), Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy, Misleading Programmes Introduction [1] An advertisement for the National Party was broadcast on TV3 on 28 August 2014.
He said this was just one example of ‘political bias in favour of the National Party’ advanced by the hosts of Newstalk ZB, who regularly ‘advance their views and opinions… [as] propaganda’.
[7] The political correspondent went on to make comparisons between the results of the latest poll and previous polls, saying, for example, that: the National Party’s popularity had increased by 1.4%, while the Labour Party’s standing had decreased by 2.3% a 1.1% increase in the Act Party’s popularity ‘was a big result for its new leader Jamie Whyte’.
Introduction [1] During One News, broadcast on TV One on 4 July 2012, an item reported that the National Party’s “popularity with voters has slipped below 50 percent for the first time in two years, according to the latest ONE News Colmar Brunton poll”.
We can do this, if we want to.” [17] We do not consider that the omission of certain information relating to the differences between the New Zealand and Swedish systems resulted in the programme being unfair to the National Party. [18] For these reasons, and taking into account the principles expressed above at paragraphs [5] to [8], we find that the National Party was treated fairly and we decline to uphold the Standard 6 complaint.
Introduction [1] An item broadcast on One News and One News Tonight on TV One on 22 November 2011, reported on the National Party’s proposed asset sales policy. Essentially, the item reported that the Government had refused to release information about the asset sales under the Official Information Act (OIA) and that One News had called on the Ombudsman to investigate that decision.
Introduction [1] During One News election coverage broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 18 October 2011, a logo was displayed stating “Election 2011”, which included a blue box with a white tick mark. [2] Simon Connolly made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the image consisting of “a voting form tick box” which was blue, amounted to subliminal messaging encouraging viewers to vote for the National Party in the general election. [3] TVNZ maintained that
He argued that “it is quite plain that the National Party has an extensive policy programme with a view to improving New Zealand society which goes well beyond simply selling assets. Most parties do.
[10] Ms Angus made similar arguments, and considered that the advertisement should have made it clear that only 49 percent of assets would be sold. [11] We note that in the lead-up to the general election, the Labour Party had clearly signalled that the National Party’s proposed sale of assets was a main focus of its election campaign.