Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, and in breach of privacy and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standards 4 (balance) – not upheld Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) – majority uphold Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] RT made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV One’s Sunday programme at 7. 30pm on 1 July 2007. It was alleged that the programme breached Standards 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code. [2] The complainant referred the complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 45/94 Decision No: 46/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PETA BROWN of Port Ohope Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Sunday breached the complainant’s privacy, and was unfair to the complainant, by broadcasting an image taken on the complainant’s property. The Authority found the complainant was not identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard, and was not ‘referred to’ in the broadcast for the purposes of the fairness standard. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that broadcasting an image of Julian Batchelor’s car (sign-written with ‘stop co-governance’ advertising, including Batchelor’s website domain name, and cell phone number) breached Batchelor’s privacy due to the car’s licence plate not being blurred. The Authority found that no private information had been disclosed – noting the car was parked in a publicly visible place, and the Authority has previously found brief footage of licence plates in a broadcast does not amount to an offensive disclosure of private facts, for the purposes of the standard. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported that a man had drowned trying to save two children – showed footage of ambulance officers performing CPR and then apologising to the man’s family because they could not revive him – showed family grieving next to the body – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – item included prolonged and close-up footage of grieving family members – offensive intrusion into highly vulnerable and distressing moment – privacy of family members breached – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unclassified news programme aimed at adults – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spectrum – reported on The Nelson Ark APART programme – presenter interviewed graduates, including a young woman, about their involvement in the programme – woman was asked about her background and how she came to be on the programme – allegedly in breach of her privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – woman was not identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard – woman did not say she was raped, as alleged – no private facts were disclosed in a manner that would be considered highly offensive – high value speech – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Spectrum reported on The Nelson Ark APART programme, an eight-week dog training course designed to teach young people discipline, compassion and tolerance through empathy....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-019:Clements and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-019 PDF712. 42 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq, shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – broadcast was in the public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on One News at 6pm on 30 September 2004 showed video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq. The video showed Mr Bigley shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government. [2] The introduction to the piece indicated that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had shifted position slightly and hinted that some contact with the hostage takers might be attempted. Complaint [3] J M Copland complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Renters – item showing dispute between tenant and rental agent – allegedly in breach of privacy, also unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair – not upheld. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Renters on TV2 at 8pm on 17 February 2005 showed an altercation between a tenant and a rental agent. The tenant argued with the agent about a sign in the downstairs window which had led to prospective tenants pestering him in the upstairs flat....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the decision. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – “Ticking Time Bomb” – reported that Phillip Edwards, who had been charged with the murder of David McNee and convicted of manslaughter, had previously been implicated in an attack on another man – police did not prosecute – other man’s name disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – Privacy Principles iii), v), and vi) – no unjustified invasion of man’s privacy - man’s name disclosed as aspect of current affairs item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A 20/20 item, “Ticking Time Bomb”, revealed that Phillip Edwards, who was arrested for the murder of television celebrity David McNee, had earlier been implicated in an attack on another man....

The chair, Joanne Morris, declared a conflict of interest and declined to participate in the determination of this complaint....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-123:Waters and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-123 PDF310. 68 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on a fatal bus crash that occurred south of Gisborne on Christmas Eve in 2016. The bus was carrying students and teachers from a visiting Tongan school band. The item featured photos, sourced from a public Facebook page for the Tongan community, of some of the injured passengers in hospital. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the injured passengers’ privacy. While the photos were in the public domain, those featured did not consent to their images appearing in the news item. As injured patients receiving medical care, they were in a particularly vulnerable position....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Newshub reported on ‘cash for job’ work scams in New Zealand. The reporter described the experiences of one worker, who alleged he had been exploited by his employer and told to pay $30,000 for his job as a technician at an internet café. GL, who was named and whose photo was shown during the item, was said to have ‘demanded’ $15,000 from the worker as part of the scam. GL complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair, because he did not demand or receive any payment from the worker and he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him....