Alloway and 95bFM - 1997-144, 1997-145
Members
- S R Maling (Chair)
- J Withers
- L M Loates
- R McLeod
Dated
Complainant
- Steve Alloway
Number
1997-144–145
Programme
95bFMBroadcaster
Campus Radio bFM LtdChannel/Station
95bFMStandards
Standards Breached
Summary
A conversation with a real estate salesperson about one of his methods for obtaining
the names and addresses of people who were possibly considering selling their home,
and the privacy implications involved in this process, was broadcast on 95bFM at
about 11:15am on 17 July 1997.
Mr Alloway, the real estate salesperson spoken to, advised that he was not told that
the call was being broadcast live and complained to the Broadcasting Standards
Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that it involved a breach of his
privacy. He also complained to 95bFM that the broadcast breached a number of
broadcasting standards.
While apologising for any distress caused by the broadcast, 95bFM did not accept
that Mr Alloway's privacy was breached.
Dissatisfied both with 95bFM's decision on the privacy complaint, and that it did not
reply to the standards complaint, Mr Alloway referred the latter issue to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Act.
For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the standards complaint and orders the
broadcaster to pay costs to the Crown of $250. It declines to uphold the privacy
complaint.
Decision
The members of the Authority have read a transcript of the broadcast complained
about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this
instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.
Mr Alloway, a real estate agent, writes to people who advertise a garage sale in the
"New Zealand Herald". The letter asks whether a house sale is proposed and offers
the services of the company for which he works.
The recipient of one of these letters happened to be an announcer with 95bFM.
While on air, he advised listeners that he had received the letter, commenting in the
introduction:
I'm totally sick of it – getting all this crap from real estate agents.
He also objected to being "hassled to death" by "those bastard" agents. He then
telephoned Mr Alloway. Without telling Mr Alloway that the call was being
broadcast live, or indeed that he was an announcer, he asked some questions about Mr
Alloway's methods of obtaining new listings. He said he objected to the "junk mail"
he received and demanded to know how Mr Alloway gained access to his name and
address details. After concluding the call, he commented:
Well that's Steve Gallaway [sic] from United Realty in Dominion Road. Their
phone number is 6387806 .... very interesting. He's right, that's definitely how
the world is going and they don't care, let's put it that way. 6387806 (repeating
phone number) ... I think we'll send his boss a tape of the call. No doubt he'll
claim his right to privacy 'I didn't know it was being recorded, I didn't know it
was being broadcast on B, Gee Wizz'.
Mr Alloway complained that the call was a breach of s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting
Act 1989 which requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the
privacy of the individual. He also claimed the breach of a number of standards in the
Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Having examined the matters raised in the
complaint, the Authority considers that Mr Alloway's concerns are encapsulated in
standard R5. It therefore subsumes all matters under that standard. It requires
broadcasters:
R5 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any
programme.
The response from 95bFM focussed on the privacy matter. It was the issue raised in
the initial complaint. The standards matters were raised subsequently after the
Authority advised Mr Alloway that it was open to him to make a complaint alleging a
breach of standards. The Authority pointed out that, on occasions, the issues raised
by a privacy complainant may encompass standards matters as well as, or in addition
to, privacy concerns.
On this occasion, as noted above, the Authority has assessed the complaint under
s.4(1)(c) of the Act and standard R5 of the Code. It is of the view that the response
from 95bFM addresses all the relevant issues.
The broadcaster, 95bFM, stated that the announcer's behaviour was disappointing
and it apologised for any distress caused to Mr Alloway. The announcer, it added,
had been given a warning.
However, the station did not consider that the call involved a breach of privacy. Mr
Alloway, it argued, had not been abused or denigrated and had been given every
opportunity to respond to the issues raised. His name and telephone number were
public information. Further, as the operation of any service business could be
scrutinised by those to whom the service was directed, the public was entitled to be
advised of the methods used by Mr Alloway.
In his final comment, Mr Alloway said that his office was "inundated" with abusive
calls after the interview. He pointed out again that at no time during the interview was
he told the true purpose of the call. He also questioned the assertion made by the
announcer claiming that the call principally sought information, given the language
used in the broadcast before, during, and after the telephone call.
Under the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, broadcasters are required to retain a
recording of all open-line programmes for 35 days after broadcast. While the
Authority appreciates the transcript received on this occasion, it registers its
dissatisfaction at not being able to listen to the broadcast. This is the type of
broadcast where the tone of the participants can be important in deciding not only
whether a breach occurred, but also the seriousness of the breach. Its absence has
made it more difficult for the Authority on this occasion to assess the extent of the
breach.
The broadcaster apologised to Mr Alloway for any distress caused, but it did not
accept a breach of the standards.
The broadcast disclosed the name of the person called, his occupation and his
employer, and did so in a way which the Authority concludes was critical of him. The
disclosure of this information would not have been in question in a broadcast had the
approach to Mr Alloway been to question him openly on the business methods he
used. However, Mr Alloway did not know that the caller was an announcer or that
the interview was being broadcast, so he was not in a position to give consent.
The Authority deals first with the privacy complaint which it considered under
privacy principle v). It reads:
v) The protection of privacy includes the protection against the disclosure by
the broadcaster, without consent, of the name and/or address and/or
telephone number of an identifiable person. This principle does not apply
to details which are public information, or to news and current affairs
reporting, and is subject to the "public interest" defence in principle (vi).
The Authority is divided as to whether the information disclosed was public
information to which the principle applies. The majority notes that the details
disclosed applied only to Mr Alloway's occupation as a real estate agent, and not to
him as a private individual. It was readily ascertainable public information about his
publicly-known role. The majority also points out that Mr Alloway, by writing to
the advertisers of garage sales, provided information about himself to a range of people
in the community, some of whom might object to his approach. Accordingly, the
majority does not accept that the broadcast involved a breach of Mr Alloway's
privacy.
The minority disagrees. On the basis that privacy complaints have to give particular
consideration to the facts of each case, it does not consider that Mr Alloway's actions
in seeking business deserved the public denigration to which he was subjected. The
broadcast, it notes, was aggressive and invited an aggressive response from listeners
towards Mr Alloway and his employer. Taking into account the legitimate sales
method used by Mr Alloway, and the animosity contained in the broadcast, the
minority decides that Mr Alloway's privacy was breached when his name, his
employer's name and his employer's telephone number were broadcast. There was,
the minority concludes, no public interest involved in the broadcast.
The Authority is unanimous that Mr Alloway was dealt with unfairly during the
broadcast. He was questioned critically about his sales methods and the conversation,
without Mr Alloway's knowledge, let alone his consent, he was broadcast by 95bFM.
The decision to uphold the broadcast as a breach of standard R5 is made without
question.
For the reasons above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast
by 95bFM of the call with Mr Alloway at about 11:15am on 17 July 1997
breached standard R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.
It declines to uphold the privacy complaint.
Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under either s.13(1)
or s16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority notes that 95bFM apologised
to Mr Alloway for the "obvious distress Mr Alloway has experienced". It also notes
that the announcer has been disciplined.
Notwithstanding the above, the Authority concludes that an order is called for here.
First, whether it was intended or not, there was an element of deception in the
announcer's recording of the conversation and putting it to air without disclosing this
to the complainant. And secondly, the strong language used both before and after the
publication of the conversation tended towards personal denigration of the
complainant. That was unfortunate and beyond acceptable broadcasting practice.
Order
Pursuant to s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 (as amended in 1996), the
Authority orders 95bFM to pay costs to the Crown in the amount of $250 within
one month of the date of this decision.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
Sam Maling
Chairperson
20 November 1997
Appendix
Mr Alloway's Privacy Complaint – 18 July 1997
Steve Alloway of Auckland complained to both 95bFM and the Broadcasting
Standards Authority about a call he had received on his mobile phone on 17 July 1997
at about 11:15am. Explaining that he was a real estate salesperson who wrote letters
to people who advertised a garage sale, he said that he had been interrogated about a
letter he had sent.
Mr Alloway considered that the caller had been abusive, rude, aggressive and naive,
and had tried to undermine his integrity as a real estate salesperson. At no time, he
added, had the caller associated himself with a broadcaster in any way. Later, Mr
Alloway stated, he had ascertained that the caller was an announcer with 95bFM and
had broadcast the conversation. The conversation had included his name and work
phone number which, Mr Alloway argued, was a breach of his privacy and in
contravention of the broadcasting standards.
Mr Alloway said that he was outraged by the announcer's irresponsible behaviour.
He advised that he had sent a copy of his letter to the announcer.
Mr Alloway's Standards Complaint to 95bFM – 6 August 1997
Mr Alloway subsequently lodged a standards complaint with the broadcaster. He
considered that the broadcast on 17 July breached standards G1, G4, G6 and G7 of
the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.
95bFM's Response to the Authority – 15 August 1997
Explaining that the matter was being taken seriously despite the complainant's
contention to the contrary, 95bFM's station manager (Adam Hyde) said that the
station was disappointed in the announcer's behaviour but did not consider it to be a
breach of privacy. He added:
We apologise to Mr Alloway for any distress caused by the broadcast on
Thursday 17 July. We have given [the announcer] a warning and he understands
clearly that any further similar behaviour may result in his suspension.
Enclosing a transcript of the broadcast complained about, the station manager denied
that Mr Alloway was abused or denigrated. Moreover, he had been given the
opportunity at the time to respond to the announcer's questions, and had done so.
The station manager acknowledged that Mr Alloway's name, employer and work
telephone number were disclosed. He considered this to be public information, and
maintained that its disclosure was in the public interest, adding:
The operations of any service business is entitled to scrutiny by those at whom
the service is directed. In this case [the announcer] examined the methods by
which some Real Estate Agencies prospect for new business. The public are
entitled to know these methods and to enter into direct dialogue with those
scrutinised.
It pointed out that his home phone number and address were not disclosed. In
conclusion, the station manager again denied a breach of privacy and apologised to
Mr Alloway for any distress to him caused by the broadcast.
Mr Alloway's Response to the Authority on the Privacy Complaint – 28 August
1997
Pointing out in the first response to the Authority that listing and selling real estate
was his livelihood, Mr Alloway said that 95bFM's irresponsible action was affecting
his ability to do his work. He described himself as a victim.
In his second response, also dated 28 August, Mr Alloway explained that he had
obtained the announcer's address when he advertised a garage sale in the "NZ Herald".
After the interview with him had been broadcast, Mr Alloway reported, his office was
"inundated with abusive calls". He commented:
At no time during the "interview" was I informed of the true purpose of the call.
Because of [the announcer's] introduction to this interview I seriously question
his integrity as to the fact that he knowingly and with premeditation placed me
in a position where I could have made unintentional and possibly devastating
comments over an open line to the general public. This has had enormous
repercussions on both myself, my employer and my family.
While 95bFM's station manager had been helpful initially, he had not reported back as
promised. He also questioned the station manager's interpretation of the transcript
and stated that, because of the broadcast:
... I have lost a considerable number of opportunities in my business, both
myself and my family have come under extreme pressure and as a consequence
my health has suffered.
Mr Alloway's Referral of the Standards Complaint to the Authority –
4 September 1997
As he had not heard from 95bFM within the statutory time limit, Mr Alloway
referred the standards complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under
s8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.