Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person flying New Zealand flag at home in dispute with neighbours – complainants who are neighbours named and their home shown – complainants have long history of community service – private facts disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (Privacy) Privacy Principles (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) – dispute about flag had been heard in the District Court – accordingly not private – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A dispute between Mr Brian McGinty of Orewa and his neighbours, including Sir Ross and Lady Jansen, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 18 March 2004 beginning at 7. 00pm. The dispute was about Mr McGinty’s neighbours objecting to his desire to fly a New Zealand flag on his property....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed the difficulties first-home buyers face in attaining a Government HomeStart financial grant. At the end of the item, the reporter discussed the increase in the number of overseas buyers in Auckland. During this segment, footage of three people walking into an open home from the road was shown. At the end of the item, this group and one other individual were shown getting into a car parked in the street, with the number plate clearly visible. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this footage breached the group’s privacy. While the individuals walking to the car were identifiable, none of their personal details were disclosed, and they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Dasam Granth Da Sach. During the programme the host made comments about a well-known female Sikh preacher, including that she should marry a Taksali (traditionally trained Sikh) rather than a Jāgaruka (enlightened Sikh), because she supports the ideology of the former, and because husbands ‘in our society’ resort to beating when offended by their wives. The host also used words that can carry sexual connotations but, in the specific context of the broadcast, were unlikely to do so. The Authority acknowledged the potentially offensive nature of the comments to some people, but found overall the potential harm arising was not at a level justifying regulatory intervention or restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Privacy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-004 Decision No: 1996-005 Decision No: 1996-006 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by COMPLAINANT L of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary An item on the Holmes programme examined the situation of a woman and her eight year old son who was described as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Footage of the child, exhibiting what were said to be some behavioural problems of the syndrome, was shown on the programme which was broadcast on TV One on 4 March 1999 commencing at 7. 00 pm. Ms Burnell complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme violated the child’s rights of privacy and confidentiality. He was identified by his first name, his face was visible, and he clearly expressed his total opposition to being filmed for public viewing, she wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out an email from the complainant – pronounced complainant’s last name incorrectly – host made comments responding to the complainant’s email – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable – people who provide feedback cannot expect anonymity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a Breakfast segment called “On This Day”, broadcast on TV One at 6. 45am on 24 June 2009, the host referred to the “Jakarta incident” saying: On this day in 1982, a British Airways Boeing 747 en route from London to Auckland lost power in all four engines when it flew into volcanic ash off Indonesia. The pilots managed incredibly to glide the plane through the cloud of ash before restarting the engines and landing safely....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – complainants attended and participated in auction – complainants claimed that they would not be filmed – shown on programme – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 6 – irreconcilable conflict of facts as to particulars of the request not to film – decline to determine Standard 3 Guideline 3a Privacy Principle iii – no intentional intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A couple was shown making the final bid in the auction for a house during an episode of the reality series Location, Location, Location. The bid was unsuccessful as it failed to reach the reserve. The episode was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 17 July 2002. [2] BQ and CR, the couple making the bid, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

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...

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 1989Campbell Live – item about a woman who believed a company called Christine Layby owed her $900 – woman shown visiting the company director’s home to demand a refund – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – ownership of a business not a private fact – disclosure of that fact not highly offensive – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine three aspects – other aspects related to website material only or interviewees’ own views – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant had sufficient opportunity to comment – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary Pictures of a crashed, burning light aeroplane, the only one of its kind in New Zealand, were shown on One Network News on 28 August 1998 beginning at 6. 00pm. It was reported that two people had been killed in the accident. W complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast constituted a breach of privacy and good taste. She pointed out that as the widow of one of those killed, she had not at that stage been informed of the accident. She complained that in its haste to get the item to air, TVNZ had omitted to consider the feelings of the widows and families of the two men killed. She contended that it must have known that there had not been sufficient time to inform the families....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

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....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Solid Gold – The Edge – The Rock – messages broadcast over 4 days asking anyone who knew whereabouts of complainant to contact The RadioWorks – improper use of missing person report – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsPrinciple 3, guideline 3a – privacy principle (iii) – disclosure of name because of a company’s unpaid debt – intrusion into seclusion – majority uphold; privacy principle (iv) – no intention to ridicule – no uphold; privacy principle (v) – no public interest in name disclosure – majority uphold Principle 5, guideline 5c – reference to complainant unfair – majority uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...