Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge’s Smash! 20 countdown show, a caller successfully answered a series of questions based on the songs in the countdown and won a prize. While taking the caller’s personal details, the announcer left the phone channel in ‘on-air’ mode and inadvertently broadcast the caller’s full name, address, school, date of birth and mobile number. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the caller’s privacy. The caller was clearly identifiable and disclosed a high level of personal detail on air, over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Authority acknowledged the caller’s disclosure was the result of an unfortunate technical error on the announcer’s part, and that the broadcaster took immediate actions to respond to the breach. The Authority did not make any order in these circumstances. Upheld: PrivacyNo OrderIntroduction[1] During The Edge’s Smash!...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-021 Decision No: 1998-022 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by E of Napier Broadcaster GRAHAM J BARCLAY T/A SOUNDWAVE FM of Napier S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item covered the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court explaining how his relationship with Ms Elliott began – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of relationship were not sufficiently explicit to require a warning – high degree of public interest – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – deceased person not an “individual” for the purposes of Broadcasting Act 1989 – privacy standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 9 July 2009, covered the day’s events at the trial of Clayton Weatherston, who was accused of murdering Sophie Elliott....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – man shown gathering scallops – statement in programme that “there was sufficient there anyway to issue him with a couple of infringement notices” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – filmed in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on Coastwatch broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 14 February 2005 showed a diver approached by Ministry of Fisheries officers while gathering scallops. The fisheries officer told him that he should only have collected 60 scallops, whereas he had 104 scallops on the boat. The fisheries officer explained that this was “not in the area of what we consider to be a serious offence”, and the diver said that he had been trying to do things by the book....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A repeat broadcast of an episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the surviving driver that the repeat broadcast, without his consent, breached his privacy. The complainant signed a consent form, and the timeline between the accident and the repeat broadcast more than four years later, in the absence of any further objections from him, suggested that he gave his consent freely, and not under duress. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The crash occurred on 4 December 2009, and the episode subject to complaint – a repeat broadcast – screened on 24 May 2014 on TV ONE....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-033:Rutherford and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-033 PDF1. 11 MB...

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

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 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....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Simulcast by broadcasters of the Good Vibrations Carnival at Cooper’s Beach between 1pm and 5pm Saturday 15 April 2006 – carnival organised as community response to Dr Neil Benson’s plan to open a brothel at Cooper’s Beach – broadcast included comments critical of brothel proposal and extracts critical of the proposal from the meeting at Mangonui Town Hall organised to discuss brothel proposal – broadcasts allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsDoubtless Bay Family RadioPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – approach taken in broadcast clearly explained and reasonable opportunities given for other significant points of view – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – Bensons not dealt with unfairly – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – brothel owners not denigrated or discriminated against – not upheldFar…...