Search

...

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 privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent controversy about the noise levels at the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland was discussed on Close Up @ 7 on TV One at 7pm on 17 December 2004. The item included a studio discussion with a member of the local residents’ group that had petitioned to get the noise levels reduced, and an Auckland City Councillor. [2] The item began by showing the signatures of those whose petition over the noise levels had been presented to the Environment Court....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

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....

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....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reported on the use of anti-depressants – excerpts from a radio talkback show were used in the item – two excerpts involved the complainant discussing her use of anti-depressant drugs – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable in the item – item did not disclose any private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on the 20/20 programme, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 30 August 2007, examined the use of the anti-depressant drug Aropax and the difficulty some people had experienced when trying to stop using it. The item included excerpts from a radio talkback discussion concerning the use of anti-depressants....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-057 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D S ROBERTS of Kaikoura TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-064 Dated the 25th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D of Palmerston North Broadcaster 92. 2XS (Palmerston North) S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryBirthday calls broadcast by 1XX in Whakatane on the morning of 7 April 1999 included one to BB who, it was said, was 50 on Saturday. The call included the comment that she was to be reunited on that day with her son whom she had given up for adoption 30 years ago. BB complained to Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd, the broadcaster of 1XX, that this incorrect statement was offensive and an invasion of her privacy. Explaining that an apology had been broadcast on 8 April and that a complaint had been made by the broadcaster to the police, Mr Glenn Smith, the broadcaster's Managing Director, apologised for the distress caused by the broadcast. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, BB referred her complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary The apprehension by the police of two teenage girls in a clothing store, one of whom had been accused of shoplifting, was portrayed in a segment of Police, broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 8 April 1999. The faces of the girls were blurred. Police is a reality series which reports on the day-to-day activities of police officers. Mrs L complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the privacy standard. She subsequently advised that both girls were her daughters, but in her initial complaint referred only to the effect of the programme on her younger daughter who had been accused by police of stealing some clothing. She complained that despite the blurring of their faces, the girls were identifiable to friends and family....

SummaryA weekend in the Wairarapa was the prize in a competition run by radio station 91ZM in Wellington in the first week of February. Listeners were invited to write in and explain why they deserved this holiday. Some entries were read each day, including one from "Malcolm" on Wednesday, and he was subsequently chosen as the winner on Friday. His winning entry was read on both days and he was spoken to on-air on Friday after the announcer telephoned his named place of work and asked for him by name. His entry detailed how his wife of 13 years had left him and his two sons (aged 12 and 9) a little over a year previously as she was having an affair with a 19-year-old. His letter concluded by stating his former wife "has since been dumped by the 19-year-old"....

Summary An item on the Holmes programme examined the situation of a woman and her eight year old son who was described as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Footage of the child, exhibiting what were said to be some behavioural problems of the syndrome, was shown on the programme which was broadcast on TV One on 4 March 1999 commencing at 7. 00 pm. Ms Burnell complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme violated the child’s rights of privacy and confidentiality. He was identified by his first name, his face was visible, and he clearly expressed his total opposition to being filmed for public viewing, she wrote....

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

SummaryA prison officer who was accused of impregnating a prison inmate was the subject of a news item broadcast on 3 National News on 12 August 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. B of Wellington complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her family’s privacy was breached, as footage of their family home was included in the item. In fact, she wrote, it was her partner’s brother who had been accused. He had never lived at their address. She emphasised that her family had been caused great distress by the broadcast. TV3 responded that it went to B’s address having made its own inquiries as to where the prison officer lived. It advised that it was apparent when the reporter knocked on the door that the man who answered the door did not wish to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM Dunedin – complainant live on-air as winner of two movie tickets – said she was studying – host allegedly said “and to think three years ago you were sitting on your arse doing nothing going nowhere” – allegedly unfair and breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – no intrusion – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – comment intended as compliment – apology offered in view of misunderstanding appropriate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The complainant was a caller to More FM Dunedin as the winner of two movie tickets. She was put on air by the host and, in response to a question, she said that she was studying....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on Air Force helicopter crash on ANZAC Day – first reporter reported from the site of the crash – second part of the item showed photographs of the men who died, parts of their Facebook pages and past interviews with them – showed footage of the sole survivor being taken to an ambulance on a stretcher – item included comment from head of the Air Force – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard does not apply to deceased individuals – servicemen’s family members not identified – no private facts disclosed about surviving serviceman – footage of survivor not obtained by prying – broadcaster exercised adequate care and sensitivity – information about the crash and the survivor of legitimate public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item about a woman who believed a company called Christine Layby owed her $900 – woman shown visiting the company director’s home to demand a refund – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – ownership of a business not a private fact – disclosure of that fact not highly offensive – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine three aspects – other aspects related to website material only or interviewees’ own views – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant had sufficient opportunity to comment – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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