Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about a painting by Philip Clairmont called “The Possum” – discussed who owned the painting, the authenticity of the signature and whether it was intended to be sold as a serious work – included interviews with Mr Clairmont’s son, ex-partner and one of his friends – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – item treated the complainant fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – accurate to state that the complainant had made thousands from the sale of Clairmont artworks – decline to determine under section 11(b) whether the signature was genuine – item did not imply that complainant had forged the signature – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity –…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Story investigated an alleged issue within the Auckland property market. It was introduced: ‘Some real estate agents are helping investors and traders… get the houses first [before auction]’. An actor approached different real estate agencies and asked agents to sell him properties for investment prior to auction and at a lower price, which the presenter claimed would be in breach of the industry code. Amy Wildman, one of the agents approached, was filmed with a hidden camera apparently agreeing to sell a property prior to auction. The Authority upheld a complaint from Ms Wildman that she was treated unfairly. The broadcast was damaging to Ms Wildman and did not fairly represent her position, and the use of the hidden camera footage was, on balance, not justified by public interest considerations....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Breeze ran a competition in which listeners were invited to nominate an individual they felt to be deserving of a shopping spree. The programme hosts spoke to a woman (G) on air about her nomination of her friend (N), whom she described as just having left a ‘potentially abusive relationship’. The Authority upheld a complaint from N’s husband, LN, that the broadcast breached his privacy. The Authority found that LN was identifiable due to a combination of identifying features disclosed within the broadcast and readily accessible information outside of the broadcast. It considered the allegations of a potentially abusive relationship and other intimate details of the relationship were highly sensitive and personal, and clearly carried the quality of private information. The disclosure of such information would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item looked at “cheap lunches for kids” as part of series on child poverty – reporter interviewed children on their way to school and asked them what they had for breakfast and lunch – children were obscured by traffic, and had their faces and in some cases their clothing pixellated – footage allegedly in breach of children’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – children were not identifiable and so footage did not breach their privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live was introduced as follows: Amongst the thousands of responses we have had to our series on child poverty, perhaps the question most often asked is, “What are the parents doing?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Port FM Breakfast Show the presenters allegedly mentioned 'Jimmy from Omarama'. The Authority declined to determine a complaint from Jimmy Courtney that the broadcast breached his privacy, as the broadcaster was unable to provide a recording of the broadcast. The Authority however noted that on the basis of the information before it, it appeared unlikely the broadcast amounted to a breach of privacy. The Authority also recorded its expectation that broadcasters retain recordings of broadcasts for 35 days following the broadcast. Declined to determine: Privacy Introduction[1] During the Port FM Breakfast Show the presenters allegedly mentioned 'Jimmy from Omarama' in relation to some email correspondence with him about Port FM's weather reports. Mr Courtney had disputed the towns/regions included in the report, and the presenters apparently 'had a laugh' about his email on air....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

ComplaintPrivate Investigators – filming of Graeme Lee – privacy – unauthorised filming and broadcast – highly offensive and objectionable – unfair Findings (1) Privacy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – majority – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Private Investigators was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 July 2000. Private Investigators is a series about the activities of private investigators in New Zealand. Hon Reverend Graeme Lee, a gospel minister and former Member of Parliament, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached his privacy. He also complained to TVNZ that the broadcast was unfair to him. The programme included footage of Mr Lee arriving for a prayer meeting at a house where a private investigator was in the process of recovering goods from its occupants....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about life and death of Antonie Dixon – showed death certificate – contained name of paramedic who responded to medical emergency – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – paramedic’s name and involvement in Mr Dixon’s case not private facts – death certificate is a public document – 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 2 March 2009, discussed the life and death of Antonie Dixon, who was convicted of several charges including murder, and later found dead in his cell at an Auckland prison. While the reporter and Mr Dixon’s sister discussed his death, Mr Dixon’s death certificate was shown on screen....

ComplaintClassic Hits – news items – privacy – complainant named in relation to theft charge – name suppression granted after broadcast FindingsPrinciple 8 – tape retention inadequate Privacy – public facts – no uphold Principle 5 – broadcasts not incorrect – no unfairness – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A woman who had been charged with theft as an employee was named in news items broadcast on Classic Hits in Hamilton on 18 April and 2 May 2001. SF complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the news items broadcast on 18 April were incorrect and breached her privacy. TRN did not accept that the 18 April broadcast was incorrect. It noted that, at the time of the broadcasts, no name suppression order had been made by the court....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from seven members of the public about an episode of Sunday, which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. Three individuals were filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon the three individuals’ interest in seclusion. All three individuals were discussing a sensitive matter and could not have reasonably expected their one on-one conversation to be recorded in its entirety and broadcast. The Authority found that on its face the broadcast breached the privacy of these individuals....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on singles looking for love – showed footage of people apparently at singles party – complainants shown – complainants were not at party – footage of them taken several years ago – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – accuracy and fairness complaints upheld – privacy complaint declined – complainants referred privacy complaint to AuthorityFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On 29 May 2006, TV3’s Campbell Live, broadcast at 7. 00pm, included an item about singles “looking for love”. The item focussed on a singles party held recently in Auckland, and showed numerous shots of people socialising, apparently at the party, including a shot of the complainants smiling for the camera....

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 New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of I Am Innocent focused on the story of Y, a science teacher, who was accused and charged with indecently assaulting a female student (‘X’) in 2012. The charges against Y were withdrawn around August-September 2013. The episode featured interviews with Y and others, all of whom spoke supportively about him. Ms Johnson complained that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards, including that comments made during the programme about X and her mother resulted in their unfair treatment. The Authority upheld this aspect of Ms Johnson’s complaint, finding that the programme created a negative impression of X and her mother....

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. On 15 March 2019 a special 1 News broadcast covered the terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. The broadcast featured footage of victims being taken into hospital, many of whom had visibly sustained gunshot injuries and/or were identifiable. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the coverage breached the privacy standard. The Authority found that media coverage of this event had high public interest in light of the unprecedented nature of extreme violence that occurred. The media had an important role to play in informing the public of events as they unfolded, including the nature and scope of injuries suffered and the action of first responders, including medical personnel. The Authority acknowledged that the repeated use of footage of identifiable victims amounted to a breach of privacy but found that the public interest defence applied....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....