Showing 1261 - 1274 of 1274 results.
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. 1993-139:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139 PDF295. 26 KB...
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Question of Justice – documentary examining the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members – included police video, photographs of the crime scene, and re-enactments of the murders – allegedly unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme explored all different perspectives – not unfair to David Bain – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – murder scenes not gratuitous – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A Question of Justice, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 12 May 2005, examined the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members. The programme included police video and photographs of the crime scene, plus re-enactments of the murders and other scenes....
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported – release of woman’s lawyer’s letter when lawyer was criticised by Minister of Immigration – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair to lawyer and failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – no principles of law involved – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – lawyer not given opportunity to respond to Minister’s criticism – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misleading as to source of letter – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to lawyer – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent developments in the case of a young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported were covered in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 beginning at 6....
ComplaintNine to Noon – host read out email critical of Whanau series – host highlighted grammatical and typographical errors in email – breach of right of individuals to express own opinions – breach of requirement to deal justly and fairly with person referred to in programme – failure to show impartiality on question of a controversial nature FindingsPrinciple 4 – host presented email correspondent's point of view – no uphold Guideline 4a to Principle 4 – host presented correspondent's opinion – no uphold Principle 5 – correspondent not treated unjustly or unfairly – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Nine to Noon programme broadcast on National Radio on 14 August 2001, the host read out a number of responses received from listeners via phone, fax or email....
ComplaintLate Edition – Breakfast – alleged rat infestation in Helensville – no evidence of rats – community views not sought – item unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard G14 – item failed to uphold standards of accuracy, impartiality and objectivity – uphold OrderCosts of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on TV One on Late Edition on 6 June 2001, and on Breakfast on 7 June 2001, dealt with an alleged infestation of rats in and around Helensville. Hans Van Duyn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair and lacked balance. He said the only person interviewed was a former Helensville Mayor, Mr Eric Glavish, who had his own "reasons or agenda to make unsubstantiated allegations"....
Ms Loates declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint 20/20 – documentary – mental health outpatient– inaccuracies – lacked balance – discrimination against mental health patients – verbal agreement about interview content Findings(1) Standard G1 – inaccuracies not proven – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided where required through interview with mental health provider – no further imbalance proven – mentally ill not portrayed as inferior – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 20/20 called "Flatmate Wanted" was broadcast on TV3 on 12 September 1999, from 7. 30pm. The item concerned the deaths of Lachlan Jones and Malcolm Beggs and was critical of the mental health system, which it implicated in the deaths....
Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-026–027:New Zealand Business Roundtable and Treasury and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-026, 1990-027 PDF3. 73 MB...
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold complaints that three broadcasts showing fishing and hunting were barbaric and cruel. As the Authority has noted in previous decisions on similar complaints from the complainant, killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life and her concerns are based primarily on personal lifestyle preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about three episodes of fishing and hunting programmes. In general, her complaints were that fishing and hunting are barbaric and cruel. More specifically, she objected to the practices of catch-and-release fishing, live baiting and boar hunting. [2] The issue is whether the broadcasts breached any of the standards set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Worldwatch was introduced with the headline: ‘A provocative act by America in the South China Sea’. The item later went on to explain, ‘China’s issued a terse statement aimed at the United States after an American destroyer sailed close to an artificial island in the disputed area of the South China Sea. China said the move was illegal and threatened its sovereignty’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the introduction to the item was misleading and unfair because it implied that the US was responsible for the escalation of tensions in the South China Sea when in fact China was acting provocatively. Reasonable listeners hearing the item as a whole would have understood the context in which the word ‘provocative’ was used and would not have been misled....
The Authority has declined to determine aspects, and not upheld the remainder of a complaint concerning a talkback call regarding vaccine mandates. The complainant had contacted the station and spoke about her son’s issues re-enrolling at university due to his COVID-19 vaccination status. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards as the host did not accept the complainant’s statements concerning the COVID-19 vaccine and related mandates, and prematurely ended the call with the complainant. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under the balance and accuracy standards as the complainant’s concerns have been recently determined in other decisions. The Authority did not uphold the fairness complaint, finding the complainant was not treated unfairly and in any case it was an editorial choice open to the broadcaster to end the call....
The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....