Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Women in Blue, a reality TV series following the work of New Zealand policewomen, contained footage of a search warrant being executed at the complainant’s property. QS, who at the time of filming was an occupant of the property, made a complaint that broadcasting the footage without her knowledge or consent breached her privacy. The Authority found that the broadcast did not breach her privacy because she was not identifiable in the broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Women in Blue, a reality TV series following the work of New Zealand policewomen, contained footage of a search warrant being executed at the complainant’s property. Introducing the footage, the narrator referred to a ‘suspected illegal drug operation’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on RNZ’s 9am news bulletin about an electricity shortage in New Zealand breached multiple standards. The complaint focused on the broadcast’s allegedly inappropriate use of terms such as energy, fossil fuels, power and electricity and the omission of contextual information. In the context of the news bulletin, the Authority found RNZ’s audience was unlikely to be misled. Accordingly, the accuracy standard was not breached. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the couple's privacy as the information was already in the public domain at the time of broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During an episode of Campbell Live, the reporter took viewers on a 'tour' of a beach house belonging to former Cabinet Minister Judith Collins. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that Ms Collins' privacy was breached, as the broadcaster advised that Ms Collins had consented to the filming and broadcast of the footage. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] During an episode of Campbell Live, the reporter took viewers on a 'tour' of a beach house belonging to former Cabinet Minister Judith Collins. The item was introduced by the presenter as follows: During the Dirty Politics saga which ended with her resignation as Minister as we know, we drove out [to the beach house] repeatedly trying to talk to Ms Collins – no luck....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A Campbell Live item reported on a convicted fraudster, X, and contained interviews with her ‘victims’, including a disabled man who had advanced money to X on the basis her daughter would become his wife. A photo was shown of his supposed wife-to-be (the complainant). The Authority did not uphold her complaint that showing her photograph breached her privacy. While it was unfortunate, very few people would have identified the complainant, there was no suggestion she was involved in the scam, and viewers were more likely to think the photo was not legitimate, so the disclosure was not highly offensive. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live reported on a convicted fraudster, X, who allegedly took advantage of vulnerable people....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-019:Clements and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-019 PDF712. 42 KB...

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 43/94 Decision No: 44/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SHIRLEY EARLLY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Hosts and a guest on the Otago student radio station, Radio One, made comments about a well-known Dunedin resident, including that he had been in a psychiatric hospital, and that his parents locked him up as a child because he was slow and an embarrassment to them. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the man’s privacy. The information disclosed had the quality of private information whether or not it was true. It was sensitive in nature and attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy. The broadcaster accepted that the comments were unacceptable and in poor taste, so the Authority did not make any order, but encouraged Radio One to take remedial steps as it saw fit....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – actor ordered four different gift baskets from four different companies over the phone – presenter commented on what the phone operators had said – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose the identity of the phone operator – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Tuesday 13 May 2008, contained a review of four different gift basket companies. The programme used an actor to call each of the four companies and order a gift basket to the value of $100....

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....

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…...

Complaint Channel Z – broadcast of phone call to elderly woman about family member in lingerie advertisement – invasion of privacy – offensive FindingsContent of broadcast unclear – no tape provided – unable to determine complaint – decline to determine – warning about unsatisfactory complaints procedure This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An announcer on Channel Z telephoned an elderly woman and asked her about the fact that her granddaughter had appeared in a lingerie commercial about ten years previously. This interview was broadcast on Channel Z at around 6. 30pm on 6 May 2000. Rory MacDonald complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the woman’s privacy. He maintained that the announcer’s questions had been provocative and distasteful and said he considered that they would have been highly offensive to the interviewee....

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....