Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 93/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MONICA O'NEILL of Rakaia Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

ComplaintTarget – unauthorised filming on private premises – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy principles (i) and (iii) applied – footage inoffensive – no breach of privacy – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A hidden camera was used on a Target programme broadcast on TV3 on 9 July 2000 to assess whether a car’s wheel alignment had been properly carried out. The footage broadcast included pictures of the outside of the business premises, and members of the staff dealing with the customer. Chris Clarke, the proprietor of Action Auto Services, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about the broadcast, arguing that the filming had been carried out unlawfully on his premises. His complaint concerned the promos for the programme as well as the programme itself....

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. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....

The Authority has not upheld a direct privacy complaint about an interview on Morning Report following the stabbing of an Auckland dairy worker. The interviewee (the local Neighbourhood Support Coordinator) speculated about who the victim could be and gave information about the living arrangements of the family who operated the dairy. The Authority did not find any breach of the privacy standard in relation to the victim’s family, on the basis the information disclosed did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. It noted in any event that the identity of the victim was officially confirmed soon after, and reporting on the circumstances surrounding the stabbing carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-018 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDDIE HAYES of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster RADIO OTAGO LTD TRADING AS 93 FM, HASTINGS J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-067 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C W of Auckland Broadcaster MAX TV LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-022 Dated the 6th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAM SUTTON of Porirua Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, and in breach of privacy and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standards 4 (balance) – not upheld Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) – majority uphold Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] RT made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV One’s Sunday programme at 7. 30pm on 1 July 2007. It was alleged that the programme breached Standards 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code. [2] The complainant referred the complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

Complaint3 News – complainants included one of two survivors of an air crash in which eight people died – message left on answerphone reporting progress and advising that they were not giving interviews to media – answerphone message omitting reference to interviews broadcast as part of news item – breach of privacy – unfair FindingsStandard 3, Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) – answerphone message aimed at all callers – information was released to the public – no intrusion in the nature of prying – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6e – time of stress for the complainants – high public interest – contents of message in public arena – use of message not insensitive or unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – contained footage of SPCA raid at his property and photographs of cats and dogs – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – photographs legitimately obtained by SPCA – use of archive footage justified given ongoing interest in Mr Balfour’s activities and properties – footage of dogs in a playpen was innocuous and used as visual wallpaper to report on court proceedings in which Mr Balfour was found guilty of serious charges – footage of Mr Balfour being served with search warrant was not obtained by “prying” – harm to Mr Balfour in terms of underlying objective of privacy standard resulted from conviction, not the item – item did not…...

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-003:Centrepoint Community Growth Trust and TV3 Network Services Ltd - ID1992-003 PDF558. 63 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb. It featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. Close-up footage, including a side-on view of part of her face (unblurred), revealed her demographic, gender, the length and colour of her hair, voice, profile of her nose, clothes, watch, a distinctive ring and the side of her glasses. The Authority found these features enabled identification of the interviewee beyond family and close friends. Their disclosure would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in her position, given she participated on the understanding she would not be identified. The Authority was not persuaded the defence of informed consent applied to the breach of the woman’s privacy....

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....