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....
Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...
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....