Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Marcus Lush Breakfast Show – host disclosed the street address of the house where the television programme Outrageous Fortune was filmed – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – no “identifiable individual” – right to privacy attached to the individual not to the house – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Marcus Lush Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Live on the morning of 11 February 2008, the radio host discussed the lack of famous film and television set locations in New Zealand that people can visit and pay homage to. He told viewers that he had received an email informing him of the street address of the house used as the fictional West family’s residence in the television programme Outrageous Fortune. [2] At approximately 8....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on RNZ’s 9am news bulletin about an electricity shortage in New Zealand breached multiple standards. The complaint focused on the broadcast’s allegedly inappropriate use of terms such as energy, fossil fuels, power and electricity and the omission of contextual information. In the context of the news bulletin, the Authority found RNZ’s audience was unlikely to be misled. Accordingly, the accuracy standard was not breached. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

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....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-2060 PDF46. 29 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – interviewed a woman who was a committed patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment & Treatment) Act 1992 and receiving electroconvulsive therapy – woman said that she wanted the treatment to stop – item reported the view of the psychiatric hospital that the woman “was not well enough at the time of the interview to have given informed consent to it” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 1 – disclosed private facts about woman – woman not capable of giving informed consent – no public interest in disclosing the private facts – upheldOrderSection 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-035 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEPHEN P IHAKA of Kaitaia Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-067 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C W of Auckland Broadcaster MAX TV LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – breach of privacy – using the airwaves to ridicule and denigrate – unfair – unjust Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) s. 4(1)(c) – privacy – no identification – no uphold (3) Principle 5 – 6 December broadcast – no uphold11 December broadcast (6. 19am) – threatening and intimidatory – uphold11 December broadcast (8. 35am) – suggesting someone has mental problems unfair – uphold12 December broadcast (6. 22am) – no uphold12 December broadcast (6. 54am) – no uphold13 December broadcast – abusive and threatening – uphold20 December broadcast – no uphold7 January broadcast – no uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $250 reimbursement of reasonable legal costs and expenses This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] R K Watkins complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintAssignment – mental health system – complainant a mental health campaigner – introduced as mother of schizophrenic – prior agreement not to refer to her family – unfair – breach of privacy – upheld by TVNZ only as unfair FindingsPrinciple 3 and Guideline 3a – privacy principle (i) – disclosure of mental illness highly offensive and objectionable – breach of mother’s and son’s privacy – uphold OrdersCompensation of $1500 to the complainant; Contribution to the payment of CD’s expenses of $750. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Issues about the mental health system in New Zealand were addressed in Assignment broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 7 November 2002. The complainant is a mental health campaigner and agreed to participate so long as there was no reference to her family....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under multiple standards, regarding two news items broadcast on Labour Day 2024: one about a protest against a proposed sewerage project and the other about commemoration of New Zealand’s Land Wars. Noting the complaint was not about content in the broadcasts but content the complainant wished to see included, the Authority found it related to editorial discretion and personal preference, which is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all circumstances): Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Highway Cops breached the privacy standard. A segment of the programme focused on a car accident in which the complainant was the victim. It included blurred shots of them being treated on a stretcher post-accident, as well as brief CCTV footage of the accident occurring and the complainant exiting their car and dropping to their hands and knees on the road. The Authority acknowledged the accident was a traumatic event for the complainant, and the impact having the footage aired on national television without their consent had on them....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on “Chloe of Wainuiomata” receiving diversion for shoplifting – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – private facts disclosed were in the public arena – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 30 April 2008, reported that Chloe, a woman who gained notoriety in a 1990s television programme and who was nicknamed “Chloe from Wainuiomata”, had been charged with shoplifting. During the item, the presenter stated: Chloe, whose slippers made her a 90s celebrity, has been charged with shoplifting. The court heard that Chloe, formally of Wainuiomata, tried to steal twenty three dollars and sixty four cents worth of pet care products from a Napier supermarket....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 21/94 Dated the 28th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by Ms P Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary An episode of a reality series entitled Petvet was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 7 October 1999. It followed the day to day activities at a veterinary clinic in Lower Hutt and included a sequence showing the clinic’s dealings with a couple who wished to have their cat put down. L, the cat’s owner, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the sequence breached her right to privacy. She complained that the documentary had portrayed her and her partner as callous owners of animals and they had been subjected to criticism as a result. She also noted that the programme had identified her by name and, in addition, had included a sequence showing the veterinarian dialling their confidential telephone number which, she said, could have led to "menacing phone calls"....