Search Rapua

Summary A news item reported that an 18 month old girl was rescued from a fiercely burning home as a result of the heroism of a fire officer. The item was screened on One Network News, broadcast between 6. 00-7. 00 pm on 15 July 1999, and repeated on Breakfast beginning at 7. 00 am the following morning. Mr Le Comte complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that footage showing the young unconscious girl receiving medical treatment was an invasion of her dignity and privacy. As the item had emphasised the fire officer’s heroism, had not disclosed offensive facts and had not ridiculed the young girl, Television New Zealand Ltd did not accept that the item had breached her privacy. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item reported shooting of a police officer in Papatoetoe – stated which street the incident occurred in and showed a driveway cordoned off – letterbox number visible – reporter spoke to two neighbours – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identifiable individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10. 30pm on Tuesday 22 December 2009 reported that a policeman had been shot three times while investigating a car in a driveway. The Nightline reporter stated that two men had been questioned by police, and that “residents of [street and suburb where the incident occurred] had some questions of their own”. Two residents were shown commenting on the incident....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on woman who sought a refund for baby items purchased from the complainant’s business – reporter approached complainant for an interview at her place of business – footage and audio recording of the conversation was broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no previous attempts were made to obtain comment before door-stepping the owners at their place of business – covert filming and recording of conversation meant that the owners were not properly informed of the nature of their participation as required by guideline 6c – owners specifically stated that they did not want to be filmed or recorded – tone of programme was negative towards owners and their position was not adequately presented – owners treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not even-handed as required by…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-039 Decision No: 1998-040 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by C of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Marcus Lush Breakfast Show – host disclosed the street address of the house where the television programme Outrageous Fortune was filmed – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – no “identifiable individual” – right to privacy attached to the individual not to the house – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Marcus Lush Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Live on the morning of 11 February 2008, the radio host discussed the lack of famous film and television set locations in New Zealand that people can visit and pay homage to. He told viewers that he had received an email informing him of the street address of the house used as the fictional West family’s residence in the television programme Outrageous Fortune. [2] At approximately 8....

Summary An episode of a reality series entitled Petvet was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 7 October 1999. It followed the day to day activities at a veterinary clinic in Lower Hutt and included a sequence showing the clinic’s dealings with a couple who wished to have their cat put down. L, the cat’s owner, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the sequence breached her right to privacy. She complained that the documentary had portrayed her and her partner as callous owners of animals and they had been subjected to criticism as a result. She also noted that the programme had identified her by name and, in addition, had included a sequence showing the veterinarian dialling their confidential telephone number which, she said, could have led to "menacing phone calls"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography – showed two men standing at a vending machine – face of the accused not shown, side profile of the other man was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – item implied complainant was defendant on child pornography charges – incorrect – seriously unfair – upheldOrderCosts to the Crown of $3000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 at 6pm on 7 March 2005 reported on the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography via the internet. The reporter said that due to a judge’s ruling, 3 News was unable to name the alleged offender....

The Authority has upheld complaints from two complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthak Vichar, broadcast on Access Community Radio Inc (Planet FM). During the programme, the hosts made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding their fundraising activities and whether they were trustworthy, and played a recorded phone conversation with Jaspreet Singh on-air. The Authority found that the comments reflected negatively on the complainants, and that Jaspreet Singh would not have known that the phone call would be played on-air. The Authority upheld the complaint under the fairness standard but did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item on girl gangs in Hawke’s Bay – interviewed current and former gang members – contained footage of four young teenage girls who were shown wearing gang-style clothing and spray-painting graffiti on a public basketball court – included a re-enactment involving two young girls breaking into a house – gang members shown drinking alcohol and talking about fighting – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – four young girls identifiable – disclosed private facts – children under 16 could not consent – item not in the best interests of the children – girl aged 16 agreed to participate on condition her identity would be secret – identities not sufficiently protected – disclosed private facts about the girls – highly offensive disclosure – upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on dispute between Jim Anderton and Mike Moore – item showed an email from the complainant in which her name and email address were visible – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principles 1 and 4 – email address not covered by privacy principle 4 – personal email address could be a private fact for the purposes of privacy principle 1 in some circumstances – in this case disclosure was incidental to the focus of the report – the disclosure was brief and would not be highly offensive to the objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 56/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by S. ARCHER of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about a Newshub item showing footage of children being uplifted from their homes by Oranga Tamariki. The Authority considered there was adequate information in the clip to enable identification of the children. While the story carried high public interest, protecting children’s privacy interests, particularly where the children are clearly vulnerable, must be paramount in broadcasters’ editorial decision making. Insufficient steps were taken to protect the children’s identities, and given the highly sensitive and distressing circumstances, the Authority considered the disclosure of footage enabling their identification was highly offensive. Upheld: Privacy Orders: Section 16(4) – $1500 costs to the Crown...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of the dairy industry in the Waikato region. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of dairy farming, and breached a number of other broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. The item was not inaccurate or misleading in the ways alleged by the complainant; rather, it focused on instances of bad practice within the dairy industry and did not suggest these were commonplace. Furthermore, the item did not breach the privacy of a local farming family, as they were not identifiable or otherwise referred to in the footage....