Search Rapua

Complaint89. 8 ZM – "spot the difference" competition – complainant’s incorrect entry read – complainant identified – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – privacy foregone by entering competition – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The results of a "spot the difference" competition were broadcast on 89. 8 ZM on 11 January 2002 at approximately 4. 50pm. During the broadcast, KD’s incorrect answers and her name, city of residence and email address were read out on-air. [2] KD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy had been breached by the broadcast. She said that the broadcast had caused her humiliation and distress. [3] The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster of 89. 8 ZM, did not accept that KD’s privacy had been breached in the context of a "fun competition"....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-136 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN ROSS of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary The apprehension by the police of two teenage girls in a clothing store, one of whom had been accused of shoplifting, was portrayed in a segment of Police, broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 8 April 1999. The faces of the girls were blurred. Police is a reality series which reports on the day-to-day activities of police officers. Mrs L complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the privacy standard. She subsequently advised that both girls were her daughters, but in her initial complaint referred only to the effect of the programme on her younger daughter who had been accused by police of stealing some clothing. She complained that despite the blurring of their faces, the girls were identifiable to friends and family....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on dispute between Jim Anderton and Mike Moore – item showed an email from the complainant in which her name and email address were visible – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principles 1 and 4 – email address not covered by privacy principle 4 – personal email address could be a private fact for the purposes of privacy principle 1 in some circumstances – in this case disclosure was incidental to the focus of the report – the disclosure was brief and would not be highly offensive to the objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

ComplaintShred – offensive behaviour – offensive language – sexually explicit graffiti named people living in Ohakune – privacy of named individuals breached FindingsG2 – currently accepted norms of decency and taste – uphold Privacy – no private facts disclosed – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statementCosts of $1000 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Graffiti seen on a playground structure in Ohakune formed the basis for a skit on the snowboarding programme Shred, broadcast on TV2 at 10. 30pm on 7 September 2000. The presenter read out some of the sexually explicit graffiti, which included the first names of several people. Dennis Beytagh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that he objected "in the strongest possible terms" to the content of the programme. He said he had never heard nor seen such explicit obscenities and descriptions of aberrant sexual practices being broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reported on high profile immigration case involving Chinese millionaire William Yan – disclosed Mr Yan’s address and showed footage of Mr Yan’s business assistant in the lobby of the apartment building where Mr Yan lived – allegedly in breach of privacy standard FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Yan’s address was not disclosed for the purposes of encouraging harassment as envisaged by privacy principle 4 – no evidence that harassment resulted from the disclosure – apartment building lobby was accessible to the public so neither Mr Yan nor his business assistant had a reasonable expectation of privacy there – item did not breach the privacy of Mr Yan or his business assistant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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. ]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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-033:Rutherford and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-033 PDF1. 11 MB...

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-001:Kilgour and QFM Radio - ID1992-001 PDF51. 02 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-041 Decision No: 1998-042 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MATERNITY SERVICES CONSUMER COUNCIL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Breeze – host revealed the fact that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break – statement included wife’s first name – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on The Breeze, broadcast between 6am and 6. 30am on Monday 19 January 2009, the host revealed to listeners that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break. The host disclosed his wife’s first name. Referral to the Authority [2] Barbara White lodged a privacy complaint about the broadcast with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy....

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’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-177:H and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-177 PDF724. 94 KB...