BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An announcer on the Classic Hits Network rang several motels in Gisborne to investigate vacancies and room rates, in the context of a discussion about charges for motel accommodation in Gisborne during the millennium celebrations. The daughter of a motel owner/manager answered a call, advised the caller that the motel was fully booked for the period and, when asked, mentioned some tariffs. The call was broadcast on Classic Hits ZHFM on 19 January 1999.

Ms Simpson, the owner/manager of the motel, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast was an invasion of her daughter’s privacy. She said the caller did not identify himself to her daughter and broadcast the telephone call as a live interview. She said the broadcast used some figures obtained from her daughter, which had been discussed by the family but not confirmed.

The Radio Network Limited station originally contacted by the complainant denied that it was responsible for the call. After further inquiry the complainant identified TRN’s Hamilton-based station Classic Hits ZHFM as originating the broadcast. TRN responded that its announcer had introduced himself to the interviewee before recording the segment. It argued that the segment did not go to air "live" but was pre-recorded. The motel rates, it wrote, were given by the agent of the motel owner.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. No tape of the item was provided. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The topic of motel vacancies, room rates and charges for accommodation in Gisborne during the millennium celebrations was investigated by an announcer for Classic Hits ZHFM in Hamilton. The daughter of a Gisborne motel owner/manager answered a telephone call on 19 January and, when asked, advised the caller that the motel was fully booked for that time. When the caller asked about the motel’s tariffs, she named some figures. The call was broadcast by the radio station during the morning of 19 January.

Ms Simpson, the mother of the interviewee and the owner/manager of the motel, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast of the telephone call, made without the knowledge or consent of her daughter, was an invasion of her privacy. She said neither she nor her daughter had heard the broadcast, but were informed about it by two people who had heard it and recognised her daughter’s voice. One person had heard the broadcast in Te Puke, she said, and the second person heard it in Hamilton.

Ms Simpson said that the announcer had not identified himself to her daughter and had broadcast the telephone call as a live interview. The rates which had been given out, she wrote, had been talked about, but not decided upon. The complainant was unsure which station had broadcast the call but after correspondence between Ms Simpson and TRN, the station was identified as Classic Hits ZHFM, Hamilton.

TRN then provided an explanatory note from its staff, which noted that the discussion had arisen in the context of a newspaper story about one Gisborne motel substantially increasing its room rates for New Year’s Eve 1999. The broadcaster contended that the announcer who had made the telephone call was experienced and would not have called without introducing himself to the person he was calling. TRN continued that the call did not go to air live as the programme was pre-recorded. It maintained that as the room rates were given by an agent of the motel owner and the person complaining had not heard the broadcast, and had not identified the station, no breach occurred.

In another letter to the Authority, TRN said that because of the time lag in identifying the radio station involved, it had not retained the tape of the broadcast. That, it wrote, gave it "some difficulty in establishing the exact details of the phone call on air". The point of the complaint seemed to be whether the motel representative was informed "about going to air or not". The phone call did not go to air live, TRN emphasised, it was recorded "and on that basis it seems likely that the person had some knowledge of what was going on". The host announcer was an experienced and reliable broadcaster, it stressed. Referring to the amount of time it had spent identifying the radio station concerned "because of incorrect information from the complainant", TRN concluded that it hoped the Authority now had "enough to go on to provide the complainant with an explanation".

When asked to make a final comment to the Authority, Ms Simpson did not respond.

The Authority’s Findings

When it deals with privacy complaints, the Authority applies the privacy principles developed and set out by the Authority in an Advisory Opinion dated 6 May 1996. In the particular circumstances of Ms Simpson’s complaint, those privacy principles are directed at the public disclosure of private or quasi-private facts in an inappropriate or highly offensive manner.

The information which was disclosed by the broadcaster in this instance related to the availability of accommodation at Ms Simpson’s motel during the period of the millennium celebrations, the applicable tariffs and, presumably, the name of the motel. There has not been an allegation that the name or any personal information relating to anyone associated with the motel was disclosed. In the Authority’s view, the information given out was public information provided in the course of the business conducted by the complainant and her family. It is unable to find any basis on which the complaint raises any issues which would invoke the application of the Authority’s privacy principles.

Ms Simpson expressed concern that the material was broadcast by the radio station as a live interview without the broadcaster identifying itself. The broadcaster replied that the radio announcer concerned was an experienced and reliable broadcaster who assured it that he had introduced himself to the person he was calling. The Authority accepts the broadcaster’s explanation. In addition, it notes that the existing Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice does not require that material such as that broadcast in this instance should be taped and the tapes retained by the broadcaster.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
27th May 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1.    Ms Simpson’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – received
      29 January 1999

2.    The Authority’s Letter to The Radio Network – 29 January 1999

3.    The Authority’s Letter to Radio Pacific Ltd - 29 January 1999

4.    Radio Pacific’s Response to the Authority – 3 February 1999

5.    TRN’s Response to the Authority – 3 February 1999

6.    The RadioWorks Waikato’s Response to the Authority – 15 February 1999

7.    The Authority’s Letter to Ms Simpson – 17 February 1999

8.    Ms Simpson’s Letter to the Authority – 3 March 1999

9.    The Authority’s Letter to TRN – 8 March 1999

10.  TRN’s Response to the Privacy Complaint – 17 March 1999