Search Rapua

ComplaintUnsolved – examined murder and rape of Alicia O’Reilly in 1980 – disclosed address where crimes occurred – breach of privacy of present owners FindingsPrivacy – no highly offensive private facts disclosed – no intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Unsolved examined serious crimes which have not been solved. The murder and rape of six-year-old Alicia O’Reilly was the unsolved crime dealt with in the episode broadcast at 8. 00pm on TV One on 13 May 2002. The programme included the name of the street and the number of the house where the crimes occurred, and included visuals of the house. [2] Explaining that she and her husband were the current owners of the house, Carol Irwin complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The George FM Breakfast show contained a discussion about the complainant’s use of the dating application Tinder, during which derogatory comments were made about him. The broadcaster upheld the complaint this was unfair. However, the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient, as the apology broadcast by the show’s hosts was insufficiently specific or formal to effectively remedy the breach. The Authority ordered a broadcast statement including an apology to the complainant. Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming Order: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement including apology to the complainant Introduction [1] The George FM Breakfast show contained a discussion about the complainant’s use of the dating application Tinder, during which derogatory comments were made about him....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of the dairy industry in the Waikato region. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of dairy farming, and breached a number of other broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. The item was not inaccurate or misleading in the ways alleged by the complainant; rather, it focused on instances of bad practice within the dairy industry and did not suggest these were commonplace. Furthermore, the item did not breach the privacy of a local farming family, as they were not identifiable or otherwise referred to in the footage....

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....

Complaint89. 8 ZM – "spot the difference" competition – complainant’s incorrect entry read – complainant identified – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – privacy foregone by entering competition – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The results of a "spot the difference" competition were broadcast on 89. 8 ZM on 11 January 2002 at approximately 4. 50pm. During the broadcast, KD’s incorrect answers and her name, city of residence and email address were read out on-air. [2] KD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy had been breached by the broadcast. She said that the broadcast had caused her humiliation and distress. [3] The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster of 89. 8 ZM, did not accept that KD’s privacy had been breached in the context of a "fun competition"....

ComplaintLove Thy Neighbour – examined dispute between neighbours – complainant declined invitation to participate – address disclosed – owner and house shown – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – principles (i) and (v) relevant – (vi) applies – public interest defence applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Love Thy Neighbour examines neighbour disputes. A boundary dispute between neighbours in Whangarei was one of the items dealt with in the repeat episode broadcast at 11. 15am on TV One on 7 September 2002. [2] B Jobe complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure of the information which identified them and their house breached their privacy. [3] In response, TVNZ advised the Authority that the item had reported the circumstances of a neighbourhood dispute, and had not disclosed any private information....

ComplaintHolmes – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – women able to be identified – breach of women’s privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Complaints of FL, Mr Elliott and Mr Herrmann – upheld; Ms MacDonald’s complaint – one aspect upheld by broadcaster; one aspect subsumed under Standard G4 Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $5,000 compensation to each of the women whose privacy was breached(3) $2,500 costs to the Crown Cross-reference: 2002-071–072 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 May 2001 reported on sensitive information about two women which had been found on a second-hand computer hard drive. Excerpts from the interviews with the two women were included in the broadcast. [2] FL, one of the women concerned, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintShred – offensive behaviour – offensive language – sexually explicit graffiti named people living in Ohakune – privacy of named individuals breached FindingsG2 – currently accepted norms of decency and taste – uphold Privacy – no private facts disclosed – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statementCosts of $1000 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Graffiti seen on a playground structure in Ohakune formed the basis for a skit on the snowboarding programme Shred, broadcast on TV2 at 10. 30pm on 7 September 2000. The presenter read out some of the sexually explicit graffiti, which included the first names of several people. Dennis Beytagh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that he objected "in the strongest possible terms" to the content of the programme. He said he had never heard nor seen such explicit obscenities and descriptions of aberrant sexual practices being broadcast....

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

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"....

Summary The final episode in the series Weddings reported that a marriage featured in an earlier episode had broken up after two months. It contained footage of the wedding shown in the earlier programme, and included comment from the bride about the reasons for the break-up. The episode was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 14 June 1999. MT, the bridegroom involved, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached his privacy. He had declined to take part in the follow-up programme, he wrote, and had informed the programme maker that he wanted neither his name used nor his face shown. He said he felt exploited by the use of the wedding photographs on the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-138 Decision No: 1997-139 Dated the 13th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by Mrs B of Napier Broadcaster H B MEDIA GROUP LTD of Hastings S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-054 Decision No: 1998-055 Dated the 21st day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LINDA TAYLOR-DEAN of Whitianga and THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL Broadcaster COROMANDEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD trading as COROMANDEL FM S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Two complaints from the subjects of a Fair Go investigation have not been upheld. The investigation focussed on the sale of a massage product to an elderly man with severe foot pain. The Authority found the privacy of the salesperson was not breached through the brief broadcast of their business card which contained their image and contact details. The Authority found this did not amount to a highly offensive disclosure of private information. The Authority also found the broadcasts did not breach the balance, accuracy and fairness standards, finding that the broadcasts were unlikely to significantly misinform viewers regarding the sale of the product and the product itself. The Authority also found that, while there was public interest in the story, it did not amount to a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of the balance standard....

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an item on Asliyat responding to petitions made in opposition to Radio Virsa staff, in relation to Gurdwara management and the sale of a Gurdwara property. The host called into question the righteousness of the petitioners as Sikhs, including the complainant’s son, who the host identified as someone at the centre of a family scandal (which included issues of drug addiction and allegations of theft and other ‘bad things’). The complainant submitted the broadcast identified his son and disclosed private information in a way that was highly offensive and damaging to the reputation of his son and son’s family. Based on the information disclosed, the majority of the Authority found the complainant’s son was not identifiable beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matter dealt with in the broadcast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm concerning a car accident breached several standards by featuring images of dead bodies in the car wreck. The complainant believed there were dead bodies shown in the wreck, which they found highly distressing. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s distress, however, after carefully reviewing the broadcast, found that no bodies were featured. In considering the images of the car wreck shown, the Authority considered that the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards, so the good taste and decency standard was not breached. It further found that an audience advisory was not required, and the programme information standard was not breached. The balance, accuracy, privacy, and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached....

The Authority has not upheld a direct privacy complaint regarding a 1 News item reporting on Kamahl Santamaria’s resignation from Breakfast, where it was stated that ‘allegations of inappropriate behaviour have surfaced’ (reported earlier that day by Stuff). The Authority found Santamaria did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information reported, and the item carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....