Search Rapua

ComplaintOne News – file footage of partly naked meningitis victim – unconscious – privacy FindingsPrivacy principles (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) – facts not highly offensive and objectionable – public interest and consent defences – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary File footage of an unconscious man then suffering from meningococcal meningitis was shown during an item on One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00 and 7. 00pm on 30 April 2000. Kathleen Hobo complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the footage breached the man’s privacy, as he was filmed naked, except for a disposable nappy. In its response, Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, said that the man’s mother had consented to the filming before the original broadcast, and that it considered the rebroadcast footage was neither voyeuristic nor exploitative....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-037 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SEAN N JOSEPH of Wellington Broadcaster CAPITAL FM LIMITED of Wellington J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on disabled boy who was left alone on a school bus for four-and-a-half hours – included interview with manager of the bus company responsible – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable but item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant in a manner that would be considered highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 on 8 March 2012, reported on a disabled boy who was left alone on a school bus for four-and-a-half hours. The item included interview footage of the manager of Kawerau Coaches, the bus company responsible. The manager was not named and her face was pixellated....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints about two episodes from the second season of British dating game show, Naked Attraction, broadcast on TVNZ 2 at 9. 30pm on Friday 27 July 2018 and Friday 3 August 2018. During each episode, a clothed individual selected a date from six naked individuals, who were gradually revealed in stages from the feet up, with no blurring or pixelation of nudity. The complaints alleged these episodes of Naked Attraction contained a high level of full-frontal nudity and sexual discussion, which was offensive and contrary to standards of good taste and decency. The complainants also submitted that the programme was degrading and breached the privacy of the participants....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....

The Authority has not upheld direct privacy complaints in relation to broadcasts reporting on a shootout between fugitive Tom Phillips and police, and the location of his two missing children in the bush. The complainant submitted broadcasting the children were ‘cooperative’ with police, and images of their campsite, breached the children’s privacy. Applying the privacy standard, the Authority found these limited details did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy, noting they had been released by police and were in the public domain, and were not intimate or sensitive in nature. While acknowledging the children’s vulnerability and lack of consent to these details being broadcast, given the significant public interest and concern for the children’s wellbeing, it could reasonably be expected that this limited information about their demeanour and where they were found may be disclosed. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant – interviewed one of the hostages – image was blurred – allegedly unfair and in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – hostage not identifiable in the broadcast – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – hostage consented to the interview – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 27 January 2009, reported on an armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant in Auckland in which five staff had been held hostage. The reporter stated that "a female hostage told 3 News she kept reliving the moments she thought would be her last, and she still can’t bear to be identified"....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-135 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GARY JAMES of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Footage of a man confessing, in a police interview room, to having murdered his daughter was included in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV One on 3 October 1999, beginning at 7. 30pm. The man subsequently killed himself. The Hope family, who are related to the man and his daughter, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the broadcast was an invasion of their privacy and had caused "an immense amount of distress and heartache" for the family. Their major concern, they wrote, was how the broadcaster had managed to obtain the tape of the confession when that was the property of the police....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-037 Decision No: 1998-038 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MANU CADDIE of Wellington Broadcaster CHANNEL Z Wellington S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintMotorway Patrol – complainant stopped by police – privacy – limited consent – personal facts revealed FindingsPrivacy – Principle vii – consent to broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A motorist driving without a seatbelt was stopped by a police officer on the southern motorway in Auckland. It was found that there appeared to be an outstanding warrant for her arrest. This incident was broadcast on Motorway Patrol on TV2 on 23 May 2000. Parts of the footage were shown in a promo broadcast on several occasions in the days preceding the broadcast. S, the driver, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy was breached because private facts about her had been revealed without her permission. In fact, she noted, there had been no outstanding warrant....

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....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about marketing 42 Below vodka in the American market – featured interview with gay bar owner – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – consent given for interview – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 12 June 2005 featured a marketing manager, James Dale, who had been appointed to promote a New Zealand vodka called 42 Below in the American market. [2] The item included an interview with the owner of a gay bar, John Libonati, who had sent Mr Dale an email condemning the disparaging comments Mr Dale had made about gay culture. Mr Libonati said that he had received a reply from James Dale which had included a number of insults....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks in response to a breach of the fairness standard during a segment of Jay-Jay, Flynny and Jase Driving You Home was insufficient. The segment featured host Flynny telling a story about an ‘embalmer’ who had embalmed their cat after it passed away. The Authority agreed that the complainant was unfairly treated by the broadcaster in breach of the fairness standard. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster, which included a direct apology to the complainant, and counselling of the hosts concerned, was proportionate to the breach. The Authority also found that the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and that the complainant’s privacy was not breached as they were not identifiable in the broadcast. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken), Good Taste and Decency, Privacy...