NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

No. 63

1170

programme 48 Hours: AIDS in Orange County on 21 October 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to be truthful and accurate and to show balance, impartiality and fairness when dealing with controversial issues.

(xvii) In decisions 27/93 and 28/93, the authority upheld complaints from The Kyrke-Smith Family of Wellington that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on One Network News and Tonight on 14 October 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to respect the privacy of the individual and to avoid the use of deceptive programme practices. The authority ordered Television New Zealand Limited to pay compensation of $2,500 to the Kyrke-Smith family.

(xix) In decision 29/93, the authority declined to determine the complaint from Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce (FIRST) that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of sports news on One Network News on 1 September 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to present news accurately, objectively and impartially, and to avoid portrayal of people in a way which is likely to encourage denigration on account of sex.

(xx) In decision 30/93, the authority declined to determine the complaint from Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce (FIRST) that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of sports news on 3 National News on 3 September 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to present news accurately, objectively and impartially, and to avoid portrayal of people in a way which is likely to encourage denigration on account of sex.

(xxi) In decision 31/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an advertisement for Lion Red beer on 28 October 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that liquor advertisements shall not directly or by innuendo suggest some special quality or property which cannot be sustained.

(xxii) In decision 32/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an advertisement for Jim Beam whiskey on 3 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that liquor advertisements shall not portray exaggerated stereotyped masculine images.

(xxiii) In decision 33/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from Mr Kerry Sharp of Palmerston North that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the programme Mr and Mrs on 17 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to be truthful and accurate on points of fact and to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with questions of a controversial nature.

(xxiv) In decision 34/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from Mr Kerry Sharp of Palmerston North that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the programme AIDS: What do we tell our Children? on 30 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to be truthful and accurate on points of fact and to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with questions of a controversial nature.

(xxv) In decision 35/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from the Credo Society Inc of Auckland that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an item in the programme In Focus on 3 October 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to be accurate on points of fact.

(xxvi) In decision 36/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from Mr B. G. Wortelboer of Ruakaka that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of two items in the programme Fast Forward on 24 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency.

(xxvii) In decision 37/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an advertisement for Waikato Draught beer on 10 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to ensure that advertisements avoid portraying people in a manner which is likely to expose them to contempt or ridicule, and that liquor advertisements shall not depict liquor as a necessary component of or a reward for success.

(xxviii) In decision 38/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an advertisement for Waikato Draught beer on 12 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to ensure that advertisements avoid portraying people in a manner which is likely to expose them to contempt or ridicule, and that liquor advertisements shall not depict liquor as a necessary component of or a reward for success.

(xxix) In decision 39/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from Mr Kerry Sharp of Palmerston North that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of the programme Prime Sex on 8 October 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency, to deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in the programme and to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with questions of a controversial nature.

(xxx) In decision 40/93, the authority declined to determine the complaint from Mr Peter Zohrab of Wainuiomata that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an item on 3 National News on 12 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to avoid portraying people in a way which is likely to encourage denigration on account of sex.

(xxxi) In decision 41/93, the authority declined to determine the complaint from Mr Peter Zohrab of Wainuiomata that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on One Network News on 12 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to avoid portraying people in a way which is likely to encourage denigration on account of sex.

(xxxii) In decision 42/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from Mr Jim McNair of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Holmes on 20 October 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency and to avoid portraying people in a way which is likely to encourage denigration on account of religion.

(xxxiii) In decision 43/93, the authority upheld the complaint from Mr Colin Edwards of Whangarei that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on One Network News on 14 November 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to avoid the gratuitous use of violence for the purposes of heightened impact.

(xxxiv) In decision 44/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from Mr Trevor Hansen of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Holmes on 7 December 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to respect the privacy of the individual.

(xxxv) In decision 45/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Moro Sports Extra on 25 January 1993 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to ensure that the promotion of liquor which is incidental to a programme is minimised.

(xxxvi) In decision 46/93, the authority declined to uphold the complaint from Mr John Malley of Wellington that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of a segment of