Search Rapua

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB Christchurch – “Stick of the Week” awards – host nominated and named both the parents of and a pre-schooler who had been involved in altercation with Mayor – child allegedly exposed to ridicule and humiliation – privacy allegedly breached FindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – facts disclosed already in public domain – not upheld Principle 6 (fairness) – child object of sympathy, not ridicule – not upheld Principle 7 (denigration) – item did not deal with specified section of community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “Stick of the Week”, a negative albeit light-hearted award, is a long-running segment of the Friday morning show on Newstalk ZB in Christchurch....

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 declined to determine a direct privacy complaint about the broadcast of information concerning the circumstances of a murder victim’s death. The privacy standard only apples to living individuals, and on this basis did not apply. The Authority reiterated the need for sensitivity and care to be taken in reporting of this kind. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all the circumstances): Privacy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Story investigated an alleged issue within the Auckland property market. It was introduced: ‘Some real estate agents are helping investors and traders… get the houses first [before auction]’. An actor approached different real estate agencies and asked agents to sell him properties for investment prior to auction and at a lower price, which the presenter claimed would be in breach of the industry code. Amy Wildman, one of the agents approached, was filmed with a hidden camera apparently agreeing to sell a property prior to auction. The Authority upheld a complaint from Ms Wildman that she was treated unfairly. The broadcast was damaging to Ms Wildman and did not fairly represent her position, and the use of the hidden camera footage was, on balance, not justified by public interest considerations....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi – personal ads included complainant’s age, gender and phone number – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – telephone number disclosed in a highly offensive manner – resulted in harassment of complainant – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment of $500 to the complainant for breach of privacyThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi, broadcast on APNA 990 at around 11. 30am on 19 April 2010, a host read out a number of “matchmaking messages” which included people’s ages, gender, ethnicity or religion, and phone number. One of the messages stated: 46-year-old Hindu male, New Zealand citizen, [mobile phone number]. Complaint [2] NJ lodged a complaint with APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the broadcast of his phone number had breached his privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary series Inconceivable followed the fertility struggles of eight New Zealand couples over the course of two years. During this episode, one of the couples went to the doctor for a blood test. Contact details on the test documentation were briefly shown, including the woman’s full name and her mobile number, and the couple’s home phone number and partial street address. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this breached the couple’s privacy. The broadcaster advised that the couple reviewed the episode prior to screening and gave their full and informed consent for it to be broadcast. The shot in question was very brief, such that many viewers would likely have overlooked the level of detail shown....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from 20 complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host questioned the teachings of a deceased Sikh religious figure by posing hypothetical questions about how he and his widow, now also deceased, had children. The host implied that, given the leader’s teachings about celibacy, his widow and other family members must have had sex with animals. The complainants alleged that this discussion breached the privacy of the individuals referred to, and was degrading and humiliating. The Authority acknowledged that the segment was in poor taste, but found that the broadcast was not in breach of the standards raised by the complainants....

In an episode of Mai Home Run, one of the radio presenters related a story about accidentally taking and not returning a bag containing items, including a gaming console, belonging to Lil’ Romeo. The presenter also disclosed the name of one of the people involved in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached the privacy standard, finding that the named individual was identifiable and would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information disclosed. The Authority also found the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, as it had the potential to significantly damage the named person’s reputation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the law and order standard, finding that in context the broadcast did not encourage or actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – repeat screening of an episode showing a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for infringing the fishing regulations – allegedly breached the privacy of the familyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A repeat broadcast of an episode of Coastwatch screened on TV One at 1pm on 3 October 2004. Coastwatch is a reality series which follows the activities of various law enforcement officers who patrol the coastline. The original episode had screened at 8pm on 15 March 2004. [2] The broadcast showed a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for taking more cockles from the beach than permitted by law....

Complaint3 News – complainant victim of rape and attempted murder in the United States – alleged offender arrested after 20 years because of DNA evidence – news item showed photo of complainant at time of offence – breach of privacy – community standards not maintained – item caused unnecessary distress – item involved unnecessary intrusion into complainant and family’s grief FindingsPrivacy – complainant not identified – no uphold Standard G2 – images not breach of community standards in context – no uphold Standard G16 – issues better addressed under G17 Standard G17 – intrusion into grief occurred – but valid news item and no unnecessary gratuitous detail This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The complainant, a New Zealand woman, was the victim of a rape and attempted murder in the United States....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an episode of David Lomas Investigates, which covered the story of a woman who as a baby was found on the footpath wrapped in newspaper. In two segments, Mr Lomas visited the address at which the baby was reportedly found, and during the course of the programme disclosed the street, suburb and city. Two letterbox numbers at the bottom of an entrance path and steps were also shown ‘at the next property’, as an example of what the address may have looked like when the baby was found (before construction of the new building on the property). The complainant argued this breached her privacy as the programme disclosed her full address and filmed her property without notifying her or asking for permission....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live reported on a couple who faced bankruptcy after buying a house infested with termites. The item disclosed the names of the vendor, the company and staff responsible for the building report, and the real estate agent. It showed footage of the real estate agent’s office window, which had printed on it the names and phone numbers of the real estate agent and his business partner. A majority of the Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached the agent’s and the business partner’s privacy. The agents’ details were publicly available, the footage of their phone numbers was brief and it was not broadcast for the purpose of encouraging harassment; no causal link was demonstrated between the broadcast and the alleged harassment....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast of Punjabi talkback programme, Sikh Patshahi, in which a caller to the programme referred to the complainant by name and attempted to speak to the host about them. While the complainant was clearly identified, the Authority found no private information or material was disclosed during the broadcast, by either the caller or the host to the programme, over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The host took proportionate steps during the segment to steer the conversation away from the complainant’s specific circumstances and towards the general topic of discussion, which was Sikh marriage and divorce, and emphasised throughout the segment that the caller could not speak about named individuals without allowing them an opportunity to respond....

Summary An item on the Holmes programme examined the situation of a woman and her eight year old son who was described as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Footage of the child, exhibiting what were said to be some behavioural problems of the syndrome, was shown on the programme which was broadcast on TV One on 4 March 1999 commencing at 7. 00 pm. Ms Burnell complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme violated the child’s rights of privacy and confidentiality. He was identified by his first name, his face was visible, and he clearly expressed his total opposition to being filmed for public viewing, she wrote....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....