Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about strike action at the Port of Lyttelton – showed staff who were not on strike – complainant alleged that viewers might assume that they were on strike – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – staff not identifiable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Strike action at the Port of Lyttelton was dealt with in an item broadcast on 3 News beginning at 6. 00pm on 29 March 2005. Complaint [2] The Chief Executive (Rod Grout) of Pacifica Shipping (1985) Ltd (trading as the Pacific Transport Group) complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the item breached the privacy of some Pacifica Shipping workers....

SummaryA prison officer who was accused of impregnating a prison inmate was the subject of a news item broadcast on 3 National News on 12 August 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. B of Wellington complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her family’s privacy was breached, as footage of their family home was included in the item. In fact, she wrote, it was her partner’s brother who had been accused. He had never lived at their address. She emphasised that her family had been caused great distress by the broadcast. TV3 responded that it went to B’s address having made its own inquiries as to where the prison officer lived. It advised that it was apparent when the reporter knocked on the door that the man who answered the door did not wish to be interviewed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-157 Decision No: 1997-158 Dated the 27th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP NEWMAN of Te Awamutu Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB in Christchurch – host Mike Yardley – lead up to local body elections – one candidate facing private prosecution for threatening to kill – had been granted name suppression – situation discussed on Newstalk ZB and questions raised about impact of name suppression order – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – only privacy referred to AuthorityFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant not identified – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Newstalk ZB in Christchurch (host Mike Yardley) was aware that one of the candidates in the forthcoming local body elections was being prosecuted privately for threatening to kill, and had been granted name suppression by the District Court. The station broadcast this information and advised that the candidate had declined to allow the broadcast of his name....

Complaint Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their 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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the hosts discussed their conversation with a guest the previous day who was described as a successful voice coach, and who gave tips about putting on a ‘sexy voice’. One of the hosts prank called two phone sex chat lines and spoke to the operators to see whether they used a ‘sexy voice’. One of the operators he spoke with was the complainant, who discussed practical aspects of the service, including how calls were conducted and paid for. A distinctive sound could be heard in the background of the call. The Authority upheld a complaint from the operator that this broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair....

Summary On two occasions on 31 July 1998 between 9. 00-9. 30am, a caller to Hot 93FM referred to the winner of an on-air competition as "That bitch E…C…". The caller said she had helped the winner with the answers to the competition, but that the winner had refused to share the prize of a dinner for four. Station staff then made two hoax calls in a similar vein. Ms C, the winner of the competition, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy was breached by the broadcast. She also complained directly to the station that it contravened the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards of good taste and decency. She reported that she had been extremely upset by the calls....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on singles looking for love – showed footage of people apparently at singles party – complainants shown – complainants were not at party – footage of them taken several years ago – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – accuracy and fairness complaints upheld – privacy complaint declined – complainants referred privacy complaint to AuthorityFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On 29 May 2006, TV3’s Campbell Live, broadcast at 7. 00pm, included an item about singles “looking for love”. The item focussed on a singles party held recently in Auckland, and showed numerous shots of people socialising, apparently at the party, including a shot of the complainants smiling for the camera....

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....

ComplaintMotorway Patrol – complainant stopped by police – privacy – limited consent – personal facts revealed FindingsPrivacy – Principle vii – consent to broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A motorist driving without a seatbelt was stopped by a police officer on the southern motorway in Auckland. It was found that there appeared to be an outstanding warrant for her arrest. This incident was broadcast on Motorway Patrol on TV2 on 23 May 2000. Parts of the footage were shown in a promo broadcast on several occasions in the days preceding the broadcast. S, the driver, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy was breached because private facts about her had been revealed without her permission. In fact, she noted, there had been no outstanding warrant....

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. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – talkback – topic – global warming – complainant tried to contribute – described as idiot – named as Brian – call terminated Findings Principle 3 – identity not revealed – no uphold Principle 4 – insufficient information – decline to determine Principle 5 – opportunity to terminate call without rudeness not taken – broadcaster irresponsible and abusive – uphold – no Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Global warning was a topic discussed on talkback on Newstalk ZB, hosted by Leighton Smith, on the morning of 16 July 2001. At about 11. 12am, the complainant telephoned, gave his name as "Jim", and challenged the views advanced by a professor who had been interviewed, and who had disputed the global warming theory....

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-003:Centrepoint Community Growth Trust and TV3 Network Services Ltd - ID1992-003 PDF558. 63 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree contained an interview with a man who was involved in a family feud over the provisions of his mother's will. The man described the legal battle with his brothers, and the item showed two old photographs of the brothers, one of whom was WS. The Authority upheld the complaint that WS' privacy was breached as he had not consented to having his image shown in the programme. Upheld: Privacy Order: Section 13(1)(d) $1,500 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree looked at the consequences of not writing a will or having a will contested. It contained an interview with a man, X, who was involved in a family feud over the provisions of his mother's will....