Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 36/94 Decision No: 37/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by J S of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 146/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G CHAMBERS of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that commentary during live coverage of a Black Caps test match amounted to socially irresponsible alcohol promotion, in breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The subject of alcohol purchase and consumption did not comprise most of the segment. Aside from commentator Scotty Stevenson stating he was ‘all for […] casually deleting a bunch of tins’, the discussion did not explicitly reference alcohol consumption. Any inferences that could be made about alcohol consumption were not antisocial and did not amount to advocacy of excessive alcohol consumption. The balance and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two items on Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough. The Authority did not uphold complaints from Mr Gough that the people interviewed made false claims about him, that his response was not fairly presented, and that the programmes breached his privacy. The broadcasts carried a high level of public interest, the claims made by those interviewed were clearly framed as their personal opinions and experiences, and the Authority was satisfied that the broadcaster had sufficient basis for the story. Mr Gough was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy Introduction[1] Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough, who restored and mounted original war medals, and also sold replicas to complete sets of medals....

ComplaintLove Thy Neighbour – examined dispute between neighbours – complainant declined invitation to participate – address disclosed – owner and house shown – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – principles (i) and (v) relevant – (vi) applies – public interest defence applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Love Thy Neighbour examines neighbour disputes. A boundary dispute between neighbours in Whangarei was one of the items dealt with in the repeat episode broadcast at 11. 15am on TV One on 7 September 2002. [2] B Jobe complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure of the information which identified them and their house breached their privacy. [3] In response, TVNZ advised the Authority that the item had reported the circumstances of a neighbourhood dispute, and had not disclosed any private information....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint Channel Z – broadcast of phone call to elderly woman about family member in lingerie advertisement – invasion of privacy – offensive FindingsContent of broadcast unclear – no tape provided – unable to determine complaint – decline to determine – warning about unsatisfactory complaints procedure This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An announcer on Channel Z telephoned an elderly woman and asked her about the fact that her granddaughter had appeared in a lingerie commercial about ten years previously. This interview was broadcast on Channel Z at around 6. 30pm on 6 May 2000. Rory MacDonald complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the woman’s privacy. He maintained that the announcer’s questions had been provocative and distasteful and said he considered that they would have been highly offensive to the interviewee....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on house fire in the North Shore reported that a person had been found dead in the garage – included brief footage of the complainant and his wife who owned the house – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose private facts about the complainant or his wife – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 3 July 2010, reported on a house fire on the North Shore. The news reader stated that police were investigating after a person had been found dead in a car in a burning garage, and that the death was being treated as suspicious....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has upheld one aspect of a complaint from three complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthic Vichar, broadcast on community radio station, Planet FM. During the programme, host Kuldip Singh made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding use of grant money and cheating or ‘unjust’ behaviour at a kabaddi tournament. The Authority found that the host’s comments reflected negatively on the complainants and as such, they should have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Authority did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. The Authority acknowledged the limited resources available to the broadcaster, but reminded it of its obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1989 to receive and consider formal complaints through a proper process, including where the broadcast subject to complaint is in a language other than English....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, which broke the story of Dr Jonie Girouard issuing medical certificates to patients to attempt to use as vaccine exemptions, breached the privacy and law and order standards. The item featured hidden camera footage filmed by an undercover journalist posing as a patient at Dr Girouard’s practice. The Authority found the footage shown did not breach the privacy of other patients at the practice who were filmed without their consent, as they were not identifiable. It found that the footage did breach the privacy of Dr Girouard, on the basis she was identifiable in the broadcast, and the covert footage amounted to a highly offensive intrusion on her reasonable expectation of seclusion....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Thane & Dunc included an interview with a man, X, who had a relationship with a couple (the complainant and Z). During the interview, X described the nature of the relationship. He did not name the couple, referring to them as ‘A’ and ‘B’. A second interview with X was broadcast the following day, during which the hosts told X they had spoken with the couple, who alleged the relationship was abusive. The hosts interrogated X about his behaviour, then demanded X apologise and agree to make no further contact with the couple involved. The Authority upheld a complaint that these broadcasts breached the privacy of the complainant and Z....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of electricians in Target house – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – complainant was identifiable – complainant had interest in seclusion in Target house – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – complainant did not give his informed consent to the broadcast – insufficient public interest in footage to justify the breach of privacy – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, featured hidden camera footage of employees from three different electrical companies who were called into the Target house to install a heated towel rail and change a light fitting. The companies were each given a score out of ten for their employees’ performance....

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an item covering ‘an early morning street brawl’. The complainant was briefly shown in the item speaking to police at the scene of the brawl. The Authority found that while the complainant was identifiable, the item did not disclose any private information over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Port FM Breakfast Show the presenters allegedly mentioned 'Jimmy from Omarama'. The Authority declined to determine a complaint from Jimmy Courtney that the broadcast breached his privacy, as the broadcaster was unable to provide a recording of the broadcast. The Authority however noted that on the basis of the information before it, it appeared unlikely the broadcast amounted to a breach of privacy. The Authority also recorded its expectation that broadcasters retain recordings of broadcasts for 35 days following the broadcast. Declined to determine: Privacy Introduction[1] During the Port FM Breakfast Show the presenters allegedly mentioned 'Jimmy from Omarama' in relation to some email correspondence with him about Port FM's weather reports. Mr Courtney had disputed the towns/regions included in the report, and the presenters apparently 'had a laugh' about his email on air....

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....