Search Rapua

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about CCTV and New Zealand increasingly becoming a surveillance society – included footage of two school pupils fighting – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – poor quality footage – no identifying features – pupils not identifiable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 22 June 2009, looked at the increase in CCTV video surveillance in New Zealand and whether the country was becoming a “surveillance society”. [2] The item included brief footage showing two school pupils fighting. The footage was grainy and looked to have been recorded on a cell phone. It showed a group of pupils standing around and jeering as one boy walked up to another and punched him in the head....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about a 15-year-old girl who had run away from her home in Auckland – showed the girl in security camera footage in a shop with two young companions – included footage of the house she was found in – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and children’s interestsFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boys not portrayed as being at fault – not unfair – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 February 2005 told the story of a 15-year-old Auckland girl, Emma, who had run away from home to a family in Te Awamutu....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – Valentine’s Day “Win a Divorce” promotion – broadcast was sabotaged by participants – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – concept of the promotion was not reflected in the broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] The Rock radio station ran a promotion called “Win a Divorce” which culminated in a broadcast during Robert and Jono’s Drive Show on the afternoon of 14 February 2012. The hosts rang a second participant on the instructions of the first, her partner, who allegedly wanted a divorce....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-123:Waters and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-123 PDF310. 68 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]APNA 990 broadcast a segment disclosing that a named company allegedly owed it money and asking for the director of that company to 'contact us [as soon as possible] to sort out the account'. The Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast breached the privacy of the company director because a debt is a private matter between the debtor and the person or company to whom the debt is owed. The disclosure was highly offensive as the complainant could reasonably expect the debt to remain private, and there was no public interest in disclosing it to the public at large....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-003 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT S of Cambridge Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

  BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1/94 Dated the 19th day of January 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by Mrs S. Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 104/94 Dated the 3rd day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRANT SUMNER of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-144 Decision No: 1997-145 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by STEVE ALLOWAY of Auckland Broadcaster 95bFM of Auckland S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on a threat made against MP Sue Bradford that was published under the username GarfieldNZ on the website Twitter – news reporter tracked down the individual who owned the username – contained footage of reporter knocking on the front door of the individual’s house and talking to him about the threat – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item showed the wording of the Twitter message – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of door-stepping did not disadvantage the complainant – complainant’s response provided to viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Breeze – host revealed the fact that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break – statement included wife’s first name – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on The Breeze, broadcast between 6am and 6. 30am on Monday 19 January 2009, the host revealed to listeners that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break. The host disclosed his wife’s first name. Referral to the Authority [2] Barbara White lodged a privacy complaint about the broadcast with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi – personal ads included complainant’s age, gender and phone number – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – telephone number disclosed in a highly offensive manner – resulted in harassment of complainant – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment of $500 to the complainant for breach of privacyThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi, broadcast on APNA 990 at around 11. 30am on 19 April 2010, a host read out a number of “matchmaking messages” which included people’s ages, gender, ethnicity or religion, and phone number. One of the messages stated: 46-year-old Hindu male, New Zealand citizen, [mobile phone number]. Complaint [2] NJ lodged a complaint with APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the broadcast of his phone number had breached his privacy....

ComplaintZMFM – "Bonk patrol" – man accused by neighbours of noisy love-making approached at home by announcer – comments broadcast live – man felt humiliated – breach of privacy Findings Privacy – s4(1)(c) – complainant not identified – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An announcer from ZMFM set out on what he called the "bonk patrol" during the breakfast session broadcast on 1 May 2001. He visited a woman who complained that her sleep was disturbed because of the frequent sounds of love-making in the flat upstairs. The announcer then woke up the man upstairs and asked him about his noisy love-making. The questions and answers were broadcast. PD, the occupant of the flat upstairs, complained direct to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-007 Dated the 13th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J and J McDONAGH of Masterton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge Morning Madhouse – host broadcast phone calls recorded at 3. 30am Australian time to Australian residents with horse racing-related surnames to ask for betting tips for the Melbourne Cup – allegedly in breach of privacy and good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – childish prank intended to be humorous – did not threaten standards of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people phoned were not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Edge Morning Madhouse, broadcast on The Edge on the morning of Tuesday 3 November, one of the hosts noted that the Melbourne Cup was “the race that stops the nation”, but questioned whether it might be “the race that wakes the nation”....

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 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....