Showing 21 - 23 of 23 results.
ComplaintTarget – unauthorised filming on private premises – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy principles (i) and (iii) applied – footage inoffensive – no breach of privacy – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A hidden camera was used on a Target programme broadcast on TV3 on 9 July 2000 to assess whether a car’s wheel alignment had been properly carried out. The footage broadcast included pictures of the outside of the business premises, and members of the staff dealing with the customer. Chris Clarke, the proprietor of Action Auto Services, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about the broadcast, arguing that the filming had been carried out unlawfully on his premises. His complaint concerned the promos for the programme as well as the programme itself....
SummaryIn a segment of Target which was broadcast on TV3 on 19 September 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm, viewers were advised how to remove graffiti from a variety of surfaces when "little parliamentarians" had been naughty. The graffiti which was removed included a number of messages couched in schoolyard language such as "Jenny and Winston 4 eva", "Jenny © Timberlands", and "Jenny and Timberlands up a tree L. O. G. G. I. N. G. "Stephen Sheaf complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the messages contained in the graffiti phrases were both childish and totally inexcusable. Apart from what he called the obvious political overtones, they had contained "emotional smear tactics", he wrote. The segment, TV3 advised, was a light-hearted piece which explained how common household products could be used to remove graffiti....
SummaryA segment on consumer rights relating to boundary fences was included in Target broadcast on TV3 on 29 August 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. A brief shot of a man’s buttocks was seen in a skit performed by two actors. Dawn Shelford, on behalf of Preserving Communication Standards Trust Inc, complained that she and the members of her group found this segment objectionable. She said they did not consider it appropriate for this segment to have been included in a consumer rights programme as it was "a kind of titillation based on public indecency". TV3 responded that the 7-second view of the actor’s bare bottom was in its view acceptable in the context. It did not agree that the scene was objectionable and exceeded community standards of decency. It declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....