Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item featured a man who had deliberately driven his car into the reception of the IRD’s Christchurch building following an employment dispute – reporter stated that “he describes himself as a paranoid and a depressive” – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – person’s mental health status normally considered a private fact – interviewee disclosed fact to reporter – no reasonable expectation of privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 19 August 2009, reported that a man had deliberately driven his car through three glass doors into the reception of the IRD’s offices in Christchurch....

ComplaintOne News – item concerning Prime Minister’s announcement not to attend at Waitangi for services – included archival footage of Prime Minister upset at previous Waitangi Day service – tasteless – unfair FindingsStandard 1 – historical significance – contextual relevance – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to Prime Minister – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2003 concerned the Prime Minister’s announcement that she would not attend services at Waitangi on Waitangi Day. The item included archival footage of the Prime Minister crying at a previous Waitangi Day celebration. [2] Mr Penrice complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item should not have included this historical footage of the Prime Minister....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB Christchurch – “Stick of the Week” awards – host nominated and named both the parents of and a pre-schooler who had been involved in altercation with Mayor – child allegedly exposed to ridicule and humiliation – privacy allegedly breached FindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – facts disclosed already in public domain – not upheld Principle 6 (fairness) – child object of sympathy, not ridicule – not upheld Principle 7 (denigration) – item did not deal with specified section of community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “Stick of the Week”, a negative albeit light-hearted award, is a long-running segment of the Friday morning show on Newstalk ZB in Christchurch....

Summary"Boy racers" were encouraged by radio station 91 ZM on 14 October to turn up at a named City Councillor’s home address and to play their car stereos loudly to protest about the Councillor’s stand on noise control in Palmerston North. Ross Warren complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) that the broadcast had disclosed the Councillor’s address and had encouraged people to harass him. In a brief response, the station argued that it had been reasonable to disclose the Councillor’s address to enable a protesting group to make a legitimate point against a crusade by a local politician. Furthermore, it noted, the station had acted responsibly by dealing with complaints received and the protest had been cancelled. The Councillor had accepted the station’s apology and had agreed to meet with drivers at a later time, it wrote. It recommended that the complaint not be upheld....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court AP46/02 PDF1. 3 MBComplaint20/20 – "Paradise Lost" – item on child prostitution in Fiji – breach of children’s privacy – unfair depiction of child victim – discrimination on account of sex, race and ageFindingsPrivacy – privacy principle (i) – public disclosure of private facts about children – highly offensive and objectionable facts – no public interest defence under privacy principle (vi) – upholdStandard G4 – child sex abuse victim treated unfairly – upholdStandard G13 – high threshold – no upholdCross-referenceDecision No. 1999-125–137OrderBroadcast of statementCosts to complainant of $463. 50This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "Paradise Lost", an item on 20/20, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 15 July 2001....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the decision. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – “Ticking Time Bomb” – reported that Phillip Edwards, who had been charged with the murder of David McNee and convicted of manslaughter, had previously been implicated in an attack on another man – police did not prosecute – other man’s name disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – Privacy Principles iii), v), and vi) – no unjustified invasion of man’s privacy - man’s name disclosed as aspect of current affairs item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A 20/20 item, “Ticking Time Bomb”, revealed that Phillip Edwards, who was arrested for the murder of television celebrity David McNee, had earlier been implicated in an attack on another man....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a hip hop song contained racial slurs (including the n-word). The Authority noted the broadcaster apologised to the complainant for the offence caused and removed the song from its playlist. The Authority considered this action was sufficient and, in all the circumstances, it was not necessary to determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Motorway Patrol breached the privacy standard. A short segment of the programme focused on a Senior Constable attending a crash on an Auckland motorway. It featured footage of the complainant as a ‘Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to check on the person in the crashed vehicle. The Authority acknowledged the impact of the broadcast on the complainant, who said they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes and were not asked for consent. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, the Authority found the broadcast did not disclose information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Sunday breached the complainant’s privacy, and was unfair to the complainant, by broadcasting an image taken on the complainant’s property. The Authority found the complainant was not identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard, and was not ‘referred to’ in the broadcast for the purposes of the fairness standard. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – programme about work of New Zealand police – filmed execution of search warrant at complainant’s property – programme included footage of street, driveway and house, the complainant and other occupants – stated complainant was subsequently convicted for possession of cannabis and fined – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – MA had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – MA did not provide consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of privacy – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on Haitian Vodou – interviewed New Zealand vodou high priest and one of his spiritual children – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – interviewee’s partner could have been identified through their relationship but no private facts disclosed in a highly offensive manner – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – points raised by the complainants were not material points of fact – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Haitian Vodou not an organisation to which the standard applies – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not carry invective necessary to encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, Haitian Vodou believers as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News, about claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) that staff had been abused and attacked by anti-1080 protestors, breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was unlikely to mislead or misinform audiences, as it contained comments from various parties including a DOC representative, an anti-1080 campaigner and a National Party MP. The Authority highlighted the importance of the reporting on issues of public importance in an accurate and balanced manner, finding that the broadcaster did so on this occasion....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – live news bulletin reported on Christchurch earthquake – included close-up footage and interviews with victims – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – unedited live news item reporting on extraordinary natural disaster – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people shown identifiable – victims vulnerable – however, no interference in nature of prying – public interest – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – unscheduled live news programme – warnings – public interest – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on striking workers from recycling company Paper Reclaim who wanted a pay increase of one dollar extra an hour – stated that they worked in “dirty, unsanitary conditions” and that there was a rat problem at Paper Reclaim’s plant – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and privacy Campbell Live promos – promos on TV3 and Radio Live referred to working with rubbish and rats for low pay – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness FindingsCampbell Live Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme created strong impression that Paper Reclaim’s premises were unsanitary and rat-infested – misleading – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to suggest that Paper Reclaim had a serious rat problem – Paper Reclaim was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations about its working conditions and rat infestation – door-stepping not unfair – upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tarana Drive Time Chit Chat Show – talkback programme contained discussion about “promiscuous characters” – host made comments about complainant’s Facebook messages – allegedly in breach of privacy standard FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – comments were general only and did not contain reference to sufficient identifying features for the purposes of the privacy standard – it was unlikely the complainant was identifiable beyond those who knew about her private Facebook messages, so the comments did not breach her privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Tarana Drive Time Chit Chat Show, a talkback programme broadcast in Hindi, contained a discussion about “promiscuous characters”, with the host inviting listeners to call in and give their views of, “Who is more flirty, girls or boys?...

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. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....