Search Rapua

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....

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement – profiled an ex-member, X, who claimed that she made substantial donations to the church – included hidden camera footage of church service – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – X was identifiable and item disclosed private facts about her – however, X was a willing participant and there is insufficient evidence to show she withdrew her consent to the broadcast – item did not breach X’s privacy – Bishop and Pastor were identifiable in hidden camera footage but did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 1 News item reported on an incident involving All Black Aaron Smith. Two witnesses claimed that while on official All Black business, Mr Smith used a disabled toilet in Christchurch Airport for a ‘sexual encounter’ with a woman who was not his partner. The item briefly showed a photo of Mr Smith and his partner. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached Mr Smith’s partner’s privacy. Information about her identity and her relationship to Mr Smith was publicly known and had already been the subject of widespread media coverage in relation to the incident prior to the broadcast. This was therefore not information over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The 1 News item also disclosed less information about Mr Smith’s partner than other media outlets had already disclosed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-003 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT S of Cambridge Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person flying New Zealand flag at home in dispute with neighbours – complainants who are neighbours named and their home shown – complainants have long history of community service – private facts disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (Privacy) Privacy Principles (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) – dispute about flag had been heard in the District Court – accordingly not private – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A dispute between Mr Brian McGinty of Orewa and his neighbours, including Sir Ross and Lady Jansen, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 18 March 2004 beginning at 7. 00pm. The dispute was about Mr McGinty’s neighbours objecting to his desire to fly a New Zealand flag on his property....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 19/94 Dated the 28th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANICE DUNPHY of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

SummaryIn the context of a discussion about driving habits on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 14 January 1999, the show’s host described how that morning he was passed at speed by a car which then crossed all three lanes to exit from the motorway. He identified the car by its personalised license plate, saying it was lucky there was not much traffic on the road as that sort of driving contributed to disaster on the roads. R, owner of the car, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast was abusive and an invasion of his privacy. He denied that he had been driving dangerously, and pointed out that the alleged incident occurred at about 6. 15am when no other vehicles were in sight....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about marketing 42 Below vodka in the American market – featured interview with gay bar owner – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – consent given for interview – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 12 June 2005 featured a marketing manager, James Dale, who had been appointed to promote a New Zealand vodka called 42 Below in the American market. [2] The item included an interview with the owner of a gay bar, John Libonati, who had sent Mr Dale an email condemning the disparaging comments Mr Dale had made about gay culture. Mr Libonati said that he had received a reply from James Dale which had included a number of insults....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show, Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME, having upheld Mrs Stokes’ complaint under the fairness and privacy standards, was insufficient. The broadcast, and particularly the hosts’ deceptive conduct, represented a significant breach of broadcasting standards and a lack of understanding of an individual’s fundamental right to fair treatment and to privacy....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News breached the complainant and her grandchild’s privacy. The item, which reported on the implications of GP shortages in Northland, included footage of the complainant and her grandchild (who was in a moonboot with crutches) leaving a medical centre, and of them in the waiting room. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of health information and encouraged broadcasters to obtain the consent of persons filmed in a medical centre (particularly where children are involved). However, the Authority found there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular facts disclosed (being attendance at a medical centre) noting the complainant was initially depicted outside the centre, from a public footpath, where there was no expectation of privacy. No additional information was disclosed by the subsequent footage from within the waiting room. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order Introduction [1] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged ‘bullying, deception and targeting the vulnerable’. It was reported that the Israeli women staffing the kiosks were working illegally, without work permits. The item was broadcast on TV3 on 1 July 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed the difficulties first-home buyers face in attaining a Government HomeStart financial grant. At the end of the item, the reporter discussed the increase in the number of overseas buyers in Auckland. During this segment, footage of three people walking into an open home from the road was shown. At the end of the item, this group and one other individual were shown getting into a car parked in the street, with the number plate clearly visible. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this footage breached the group’s privacy. While the individuals walking to the car were identifiable, none of their personal details were disclosed, and they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances....