Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order Introduction [1] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged ‘bullying, deception and targeting the vulnerable’. It was reported that the Israeli women staffing the kiosks were working illegally, without work permits. The item was broadcast on TV3 on 1 July 2014....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on bullying incident at Ruawai College, told from the perspective of the victim’s mother – victim’s mother expressed frustration at the school because she was not informed of the incident until a couple of days after it occurred – contained repeated footage of the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not create an unfairly negative impression of the school and staff members – school was provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and the Principal adequately presented the school’s position – item did not create an unfair impression about the timing or duration of the incident – reference to letter was not unfair – footage of police was due to an oversight – school and staff members treated fairly and overall…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 19/94 Dated the 28th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANICE DUNPHY of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has not upheld direct privacy complaints in relation to broadcasts reporting on a shootout between fugitive Tom Phillips and police, and the location of his two missing children in the bush. The complainant submitted broadcasting the children were ‘cooperative’ with police, and images of their campsite, breached the children’s privacy. Applying the privacy standard, the Authority found these limited details did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy, noting they had been released by police and were in the public domain, and were not intimate or sensitive in nature. While acknowledging the children’s vulnerability and lack of consent to these details being broadcast, given the significant public interest and concern for the children’s wellbeing, it could reasonably be expected that this limited information about their demeanour and where they were found may be disclosed. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A story on 60 Minutes featured tragic driveway accidents involving children. Part of the story focused on the death of an 18-month-old boy, and the subsequent struggles of his mother. The mother also discussed her other son, S, and photos and footage were shown of him. The Authority upheld a complaint from S's father that the programmes breached S's privacy. S was identifiable by name and image, he was linked with details of his mother's drug addiction and prostitution which constituted private facts and this disclosure was highly offensive. In the circumstances the broadcaster's primary concern ought to have been the best interests of the child, regardless of any consent obtained. The Authority recognised the value and public interest in the story but this was outweighed by the need to protect the child....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News reported on three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges, and showed images of two lists of names, in which the complainants' names featured. The Authority declined to uphold complaints that by showing their names during a discussion about the accused sex offenders, the item breached the complainants' privacy. Their position as Parliamentary Service employees was not private, the inclusion of the complainants' names was peripheral to the item, and there was no suggestion that the complainants were the accused sex offenders, as the three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges were explicitly identified by both their names and their images....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-164 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GARY REYNOLDS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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"....

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 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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989George FM – radio hosts made comments about complaints to council in respect of a road closure for street party – allegedly in breach of privacy and unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – broadcast not offensive – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue of public importance not discussed – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments were fair comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – not a news or current affairs programme – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Monday 22 August 2005 at approximately 12. 30pm, the hosts on George FM made comments about a party that the radio station had held. Particular reference was made to a person who had called the council a number of times in an attempt to close the event....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached Mrs Stokes’ privacy. Mrs Stokes had a reasonable expectation that, in the circumstances, her phone call and the conversation would remain private. The recording and broadcast of her conversation, in circumstances where she had expressly asked for privacy was objectionable and would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the complainant’s position....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the rescue of an American woman who had been held captive as a sex slave by a serial killer for two months in South Carolina. The item featured newly-released footage of the woman’s rescue, and showed her chained to the wall of a shipping container by her throat. The item also featured footage of the woman’s appearance on the American talk show, Dr Phil, during which she discussed her kidnapping. The item was preceded by the following verbal audience advisory: ‘A warning: some viewers may find our next story disturbing’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this audience advisory was inadequate given the nature of the footage, which was violent, inappropriate for children and further breached the featured woman’s privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad showed dog handlers with the Department of Corrections searching visitors to a prison. The episode showed two occasions of the complainant (SW) being searched; firstly, her bag was searched when she was driving onto prison premises, and secondly, a sniffer dog identified that she was carrying contraband (tobacco) inside the prison and she was shown surrendering this to Corrections staff. In both instances her face was blurred. The Authority upheld SW’s complaint that broadcasting the footage breached her privacy. She was identifiable despite her face being blurred (by clothing, body type, voice, etc), and the disclosure of private facts about her, including prescription drugs she was taking, among other things, was highly offensive....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Newshub reported on a Christchurch earthquake memorial service, which marked the five-year anniversary of the February 2011 earthquake. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of grieving families attending the memorial service. Families in attendance at the memorial generally cannot be considered under the privacy standard, which is concerned with identifiable individuals. In any case, the coverage was duly sensitive and respectful, was not overly intrusive and did not focus on any particular individuals at length. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Newshub reported on a Christchurch earthquake memorial service, which marked the five-year anniversary of the February 2011 earthquake. The item included footage of attendees at the memorial service. [2] Iain Baxter complained that the item breached the privacy of grieving families who attended the memorial service....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....