NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

2 JULY

2327

Authorities and Other Agencies of State

Broadcasting Standards Authority

Broadcasting Act 1989

Broadcasting Standards Authority—Decisions No.:
17/92, 18/92, 19/92, 20/92, 21/92, 22/92, 23/92,
24/92, 25/92, 26/92, 27/92, 28/92, 29/92, 30/92,
31/92, 32/92, 33/92, 34/92, 35/92, 36/92, 37/92
and 38/92

Pursuant to section 15 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, notice is hereby given that the Broadcasting Standards Authority has made the following decisions on complaints referred to it for investigation and review.

(i) In Decision 17/92, the Authority upheld a complaint from Mr Michael Buck of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an episode of the programme Never Come Back on 13 October 1991 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to avoid the gratuitous use of violence.

(ii) In Decision 18/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Murray Shaw of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Frontline on 18 August 1991 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant points of view, to deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a programme, to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with questions of a controversial nature and to present all significant sides of a controversial public issue in as fair a way as possible.

(iii) In Decision 19/92, the Authority upheld a complaint from Mr Bruce Clements of Auckland that the broadcast by Radio New Zealand Limited of an item on 89FM in Auckland on 19 November 1991 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual. The Authority ordered Radio New Zealand to pay compensation to Mr Clements in the amount of $1,000.

(iv) In Decision 20/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mrs Jocelyn Fish of Hamilton that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the programme New Zealand Today on 29 November 1991 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that advertisements will be clearly distinguishable from other programme material.

(v) In Decision 21/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Dr Miles Worsley of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on the Holmes programme on 13 August 1991 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters not to encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, various sections in the community, to maintain standards of good taste and decency, to be mindful of the effect of a programme on children, and to avoid themes involving the humiliation of children.

(vi) In Decision 22/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Roger Cole of Nelson that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on One Network News on 24 December 1991 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour.

(vii) In Decision 23/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Frontline on 10 November 1991 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant points of view, to be truthful and accurate on points of fact, and to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with issues of a controversial nature.

(viii) In Decision 24/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Kerry Sharp of Palmerston North that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Frontline on 10 November 1991 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with issues of a controversial nature.

(ix) In Decision 25/92, the Authority upheld a complaint from Mr Kerry Sharp of Palmerston North that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the programme Love and Hate on 4 December 1991 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour, and to ensure that violence in a drama can be justified.

(x) In Decision 26/92, the Authority upheld a complaint from Mr Ray Smith of Auckland that Aotearoa Radio failed to hold a recording of a talkback programme broadcast on 6 February 1992 for 28 working days.

(xi) In Decision 27/92, the Authority in all the circumstances declined to determine a complaint from Mr Charles Noble of Wangamui that the broadcast by Radio New Zealand Limited of an item on Morning Report on 10 October 1991 failed to maintain standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency.

(xii) In Decision 28/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Senior Sergeant M.B. Meyrick of Huntly that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an item on 3 National News on 4 February 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency, with the maintenance of law and order, and to be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

(xiii) In Decision 29/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Charles Rosa of Wellington that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an advertisement for Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion on 16 November 1991 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency.

(xiv) In Decision 30/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from Ms Carol McIntosh of Nelson that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of a Lion Red sponsorship advertisement on 29 November 1991 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters that liquor sponsorship advertisements should not be directed at minors and that liquor is not portrayed as a necessary component of sporting success.

(xv) In Decision 31/92, the Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an advertisement for "Steinlager" beer on 1 February 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters not to show advertisements which cause undue offence to a significant section of the community.

(xvi) In Decision 32/92, the Authority declined to uphold a