Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-161 Decision No: 1997-162 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by Mr X of Napier Broadcaster H B MEDIA GROUP LTD of Hastings S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary A short sequence in Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell-Out Tour showed the characters Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy) camping on Great Barrier Island. The item was broadcast on TV2 on 20 July 1999 at 10. 00pm. Robin Court complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme showed and "advocated" camping and related activities on and around property owned by the Onekokoru Trust. He said that some of the activities breached or could breach by-laws, and that the "unauthorised use" of Trust property was offensive and deeply disturbing to members of the Trust. TVNZ responded that the land it showed was not identifiable as Trust property. Accordingly, it said that the programme did not advocate anything about the merits of Trust property as a camping place....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-116 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ELEANOR KIETZMANN of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item looked at “cheap lunches for kids” as part of series on child poverty – reporter interviewed children on their way to school and asked them what they had for breakfast and lunch – children were obscured by traffic, and had their faces and in some cases their clothing pixellated – footage allegedly in breach of children’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – children were not identifiable and so footage did not breach their privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live was introduced as follows: Amongst the thousands of responses we have had to our series on child poverty, perhaps the question most often asked is, “What are the parents doing?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Shortland Street featured a storyline about the developing relationship of a young same-sex couple, and included several scenes of the two kissing, including shots of them from the waist up in bed together. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that these scenes breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority acknowledged there is value in programmes such as Shortland Street, which provides entertainment and reflects contemporary society and evolving social issues and attitudes. Shortland Street is a PGR-classified medical drama series that has screened in the 7pm timeband for many years. It is well known for featuring adult themes. In that context the level of sexual content did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, nor would be likely to adversely affect any child viewers....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The complainant made a direct privacy complaint about a discussion on Chinese Voice Radio, alleging that it breached her child’s privacy because it disclosed details of her dental treatment. The Authority found that the broadcast did not breach any individual’s privacy, as no one was identifiable in the broadcast. The complainant’s concerns about the dentist’s actions and the disclosure of details about the treatment were more appropriately dealt with by other agencies. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During NZ Life, a talkback programme on Chinese Voice Radio 99. 4FM, the hosts discussed allegations made by a caller about a dentist who treated her child. The programme subject to complaint was broadcast on 13 February 2014. [2] CK, the caller, made a direct privacy complaint to this Authority, alleging that the broadcast breached her child’s privacy....

Summary An item in Crimescene broadcast on TV2 on 7 July 1998 between 7. 30–8. 00pm focussed on a case where a man had assumed the identity of a dead child to defraud the student loan scheme. Photographs of a number of people who had been involved in fraudulent schemes in the past accompanied the item. T, whose picture was featured, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his privacy was breached. He pointed out that he had already been convicted, had served his sentence and deserved the right to begin his life afresh. He maintained that his case had no relevance to the item. In its response to the Authority, Television New Zealand Ltd submitted that Mr T’s conviction occurred last year in the context of a high-profile fraud case, for which others were still serving sentences....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item featured a man who had deliberately driven his car into the reception of the IRD’s Christchurch building following an employment dispute – reporter stated that “he describes himself as a paranoid and a depressive” – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – person’s mental health status normally considered a private fact – interviewee disclosed fact to reporter – no reasonable expectation of privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 19 August 2009, reported that a man had deliberately driven his car through three glass doors into the reception of the IRD’s offices in Christchurch....

The Authority has upheld two complaints that a segment on The Project, about an incident where charges against a man who allegedly shot at a drone were dropped, was in breach of the fairness and accuracy standards. The Authority found the segment was unfair to the man and would have misled audiences as it provided an inaccurate account of events through an interview with the drone’s pilot and additional comments from presenters. The drone pilot interviewee was allowed to put forward unchallenged his views on the man, and the broadcaster did not do enough to provide the man with an opportunity to respond to the comments. As the broadcast did not disclose any private information about the man, nor discuss a controversial issue of public importance, the privacy and balance standards were not upheld. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy Not Upheld: Privacy, Balance No orders...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad showed dog handlers with the Department of Corrections searching visitors to a prison. The episode showed two occasions of the complainant (SW) being searched; firstly, her bag was searched when she was driving onto prison premises, and secondly, a sniffer dog identified that she was carrying contraband (tobacco) inside the prison and she was shown surrendering this to Corrections staff. In both instances her face was blurred. The Authority upheld SW’s complaint that broadcasting the footage breached her privacy. She was identifiable despite her face being blurred (by clothing, body type, voice, etc), and the disclosure of private facts about her, including prescription drugs she was taking, among other things, was highly offensive....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Campbell Live, reporting on Pike River Mine, included radio transmission audio between those in the mine and those in the office on the morning of the disaster. The audio contained the complainant’s full name which he considered to be a breach of his privacy. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, as Mr Scott’s employment at the mine was not a private fact, and the disclosure of his name was not associated with any blame or disclosed for the purpose of encouraging harassment. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live, reporting on Pike River Mine, included radio transmission audio between those in the mine and those in the office on the morning of the disaster....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-026 Decision No: 1996-027 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SUZI ARCHER of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q+A – panel discussion about immigration policy in New Zealand – one panellist stated that meeting immigration criteria was not an easy process and included a test for syphilis – host responded “How did the test turn out? I’m sorry! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – question was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – unaccompanied children unlikely to watch news programmes – host’s question would have gone over the heads of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary In the context of a discussion about the re-appointment of the All Black coach, the host of the breakfast show on Radio Sport broadcast by TRN on 15 September 1998 reported that the previous evening he had overheard John Hart in conversation with his wife in a public place saying something like "I thought Ross was supposed to be on my side". Mr Black complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unethical to report a private conversation, and a breach of Mr Hart’s privacy. TRN responded by noting that the host just happened to be in Mr Hart’s vicinity and overheard the conversation. It emphasised that the host would in no circumstances have engaged in any unethical action to Mr Hart’s detriment....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....

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....