BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A news story broadcast on Mix 100 FM Tauranga on 4 and 5 April 1996 reported

that a furniture retailer in Tauranga was unable to continue trading. According to the

story, creditors had been advised that the owners were selling their home and every

attempt would be made to pay its liabilities.

Mr and Mrs Baker, owners of the store, complained that the announcement of their

business closure breached the standard requiring good taste and decency, and invaded

their privacy.

Mix FM rejected the complaint that the broadcast breached the requirements for good

taste and decency. In relation to the alleged breach of privacy, it responded that the

public had a right to know that the business was in financial difficulty and was closing

down. Pointing out that the information about the couple's home being sold was

already public knowledge, it declined to uphold the privacy complaint. Dissatisfied

with that response, Mr and Mrs Baker referred both complaints to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read a transcript of the tape, since no audio copy

was retained, and have read the correspondence. As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

A brief news item broadcast on 3 and 4 April 1996 on Mix FM in Tauranga advised

that a named local business was closing down. It reported that in a letter to creditors

the owners said they were selling their family home and that every attempt would be

made to pay their liabilities.

Mr and Mrs Baker, the owners of the business, complained to Mix FM that the item,

by stating that the business was in financial difficulty and that creditors had been

informed, breached the standards of good taste and decency. In addition, they

complained that it was a breach of their privacy to state that the business was in

financial difficulty and that they were selling their house to assist in settling the debts.

They also noted that the source of the information was a personally addressed and

signed letter sent to their creditors two days prior to the first broadcast. Mr and Mrs

Baker sought compensation from the station for the embarrassment caused by the

item.

When it responded to the complaints, Mix FM considered first the breach of good

taste and decency. The standard requires broadcasters:

R2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency

and good taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context

in which any language or behaviour occurs.

Mix FM did not accept this part of the complaint, maintaining that the item did not

breach the standard. Next it considered the alleged breach of privacy. When examining

that aspect of the complaint, it considered that the individual's right to privacy had to

be balanced against the public's right to know.

In the circumstances, Mix FM argued that the public had a right to know that the

business was in financial difficulty and was closing down. However, it acknowledged

that the broadcast of the information that the couple's house was being sold to enable

them to settle their debts would, in some circumstances, be in breach of the privacy

principles. On this occasion, it argued, because the information was volunteered in a

circular which was distributed to all of the business's creditors, the matter had become

general public knowledge and therefore there was no breach of their privacy. It

therefore declined to uphold the privacy complaint.

The Authority agrees with Mix FM that standard R2, which requires broadcasters to

observe standards of good taste and decency was not contravened by the broadcast of

the news item. That standard applies to material which would be considered offensive

to the community as a whole.

It then turns to the alleged privacy breach. It observes that the item was a parochial

piece which had implications for the local community, potentially affecting a number

of people and possibly reflecting a retailing downturn in that community. The

Authority considers that it was relevant to report the business closure because of its

ramifications in the business community and, while it is sympathetic to the couple's

concern that it was reported that their home was being sold to cover the debts, it does

not believe the broadcast of that fact breached their privacy. When it examines a

privacy complaint, it applies the privacy principles contained in its Advisory Opinion

dated 6 May 1996. Privacy Principle (i) reads:

i) The protection of privacy includes protection against the public

disclosure of private facts where the facts disclosed are highly

offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary

sensibilities.

In the Authority's view, the disclosure of the fact that the couple's home was being

sold is not likely to be considered highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable

person. It notes further that no identifying information was released, such as the

location of the home, or the names of the owners. The item's focus was not on the

couple's misfortune, or on their intention to pay their creditors from the proceeds of

the sale of their house, but on the economic climate in the region which forced

'another' Tauranga retailer to close its doors. The Authority concludes that none of

the privacy principles were contravened.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 September 1996

Appendix

Mr A S and Mrs J A Baker's Formal Complaint to Energy Enterprises Ltd (Mix

100FM Tauranga) - 14 April 1996

Mr and Mrs Baker of Mt Maunganui complained that the broadcast of news items on

Mix 100FM Tauranga on 4 and 5 April 1996 breached broadcasting standards. The

items referred to the closure of a business and, in addition to announcing the closure,

stated that the owners' family home was up for sale and that creditors had been

informed.

Mr and Mrs Baker complained that the broadcast breached the standard requiring good

taste and decency and further, that it invaded their privacy. They maintained that the

statements were of no relevance to the public and should not have been broadcast.

Mix 100FM's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 June 1996

Mix 100FM responded first to the complaint that the items had breached the good

taste and decency standard. In its view there was no breach of the standard and it did

not accept that part of the complaint.

To the complaint that the items invaded Mr and Mrs Baker's privacy, Mix 100FM

argued that the individual's right to privacy had to be balanced against the public's

right to know. In this case, it maintained that the public had a right to know that the

business was closing down.

Mix 100FM then examined the statement that the couple's home was being sold to

assist in settling debts. It acknowledged that in general, such information should not

be included in a news story, and that in some circumstances, it could breach the

privacy rules. It advised that it had instructed the journalist not to include such details

in stories about business failures.

On this occasion however, Mix 100FM argued that because Mr and Mrs Baker had

included that information in a 'general unaddressed' circular sent to all of its creditors,

the matter became one of general public knowledge. In those circumstances, it argued,

there was no encroachment on their privacy and it declined to uphold the complaint.

Mrs J A Baker's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 1 July 1996

Dissatisfied with Mix 100FM's response, Mrs Baker referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mrs Baker persisted with her complaint that the item breached the standard for good

taste and decency when it broadcast details about the business being in financial

difficulty and that creditors had been informed.

She also argued that the statements that the business was in financial difficulty and

that the couple's home was being sold to pay debts were an invasion of their privacy.

Referring to the letters to the creditors, she pointed out that all were personally

addressed to the creditors and were signed by her or her husband.

Mix 100FM's Response to the Authority - 18 July 1996

Mix 100FM advised that no audio copy of the item was kept, and enclosed a copy of

the transcript of the broadcast.

It pointed out that the circular that Mrs Baker sent to creditors was obtained by its

journalist from an outside source. It noted that the station had received a copy of the

circular itself as it is a creditor of the business but had not passed that on to the

journalist concerned. It noted that it was involved in legal action to recover some

$10,000 owed by the business but that the journalist was not and had never been

aware of that action.

Mix 100FM assured the Authority that its journalists were not informed of internal

matters and had complete editorial independence from management. It emphasised

that point, it stated, as it believed Mrs Baker considered its financial interests may

have coloured its news judgment.

Mrs Baker's Final Comment - 4 August 1996

Mrs Baker stated that she found it unbelievable that the journalist obtained the

information from an outside sources, as the news item was broadcast only two days

after she sent the letter to the station. She noted that there were only two other

creditors in Tauranga.

Mrs Baker advised that when she initially complained by telephone on the afternoon

of 3 April, the station manager advised that he had approved the item but would speak

to the news editor and alter the item. However it was repeated the following day.

She repeated that the item had invaded their privacy. She wrote:

As we have been in business for over ten years in Tauranga and are known by

a large number of people, the news item has caused embarrassment to us.

Therefore, we feel some form of compensation is justified