Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items reported on controversial comments made by the CE of the EMA that some female workers are less productive because they take sick leave when they are menstruating – interviewed CE and portion of the interview broadcast – included sarcastic comments and caricature of CE singing – panel discussed comments – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview footage provided a fair summary of Mr Thompson’s character and conduct – was not necessary in the interests of fairness to broadcast the full interview – items not unfair to Mr Thompson, given his position as a public figure and that the comments reported on were made during a political discussion in the public arena – not upheld by majority Standard 5 (accuracy) – items accurately reflected Mr Thompson’s behaviour in…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

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 Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

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....

Complaints under sections 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on the alleged practice of women offering sex in exchange for taxi rides – showed nightlife footage of central Auckland including shots of a number of young women – reporter interviewed taxi drivers and stated that one taxi driver had allegedly accepted sex in exchange for a taxi ride – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Ms Smith and taxi driver were not identifiable – Ms Gardner was identifiable but the item did not disclose any private facts about her – the footage of women was used as visual wallpaper for the story and clearly was not suggesting that the women were associated with the practice reported on, which was reinforced by a clarification broadcast the following night…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-158 Decision No: 1996-159 Dated the 21st day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by R DALE of Nelson Broadcaster FIFESHIRE FM BROADCASTERS LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on dispute between Jim Anderton and Mike Moore – item showed an email from the complainant in which her name and email address were visible – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principles 1 and 4 – email address not covered by privacy principle 4 – personal email address could be a private fact for the purposes of privacy principle 1 in some circumstances – in this case disclosure was incidental to the focus of the report – the disclosure was brief and would not be highly offensive to the objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – host made comments about a listener who had emailed him – called listener a “moron” who was “incapable of rationality” and said “don’t email me again until you’ve had some help with your head” – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint – complainant dissatisfied with privacy decisionFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no reasonable expectation of anonymity when emailing a radio station – no private facts disclosed – implied consent given to broadcast name – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Leighton Smith’s talkback show on Newstalk ZB at approximately 10. 10am on 17 March 2006, the host made the following comments about a listener who had emailed him: Oh dear, Kevin Malone go away. Go and get help for goodness sake. You are incapable of rationality....

ComplaintLove Thy Neighbour – examined dispute between neighbours – complainant declined invitation to participate – address disclosed – owner and house shown – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – principles (i) and (v) relevant – (vi) applies – public interest defence applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Love Thy Neighbour examines neighbour disputes. A boundary dispute between neighbours in Whangarei was one of the items dealt with in the repeat episode broadcast at 11. 15am on TV One on 7 September 2002. [2] B Jobe complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure of the information which identified them and their house breached their privacy. [3] In response, TVNZ advised the Authority that the item had reported the circumstances of a neighbourhood dispute, and had not disclosed any private information....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....