The Breeze ran a competition in which listeners were invited to nominate an individual they felt to be deserving of a shopping spree. The programme hosts spoke to a woman (G) on air about her nomination of her friend (N), whom she described as just having left a ‘potentially abusive relationship’. The Authority upheld a complaint from N’s husband, LN, that the broadcast breached his privacy. The Authority found that LN was identifiable due to a combination of identifying features disclosed within the broadcast and readily accessible information outside of the broadcast. It considered the allegations of a potentially abusive relationship and other intimate details of the relationship were highly sensitive and personal, and clearly carried the quality of private information. The disclosure of such information would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.
Order: Section 13(1)(d) – privacy compensation to the complainant $1,000
Radio Live News and The Breeze News. News items reported that British woman was bitten by a lion cub at a tourist park. Not upheld (accuracy and fairness).
News items broadcast simultaneously on The Breeze and Coromandel Gold FM two days running made allegations against a mayoral candidate for the Thames-Coromandel District Council over an email he had circulated; they used the terms “doctored”, “doctoring” and “falsify”. The candidate made a complaint under the accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority declined to uphold either complaint: the terms used were distinguishable as the opinion of his political rivals and were exempt from accuracy under guideline 5a; and the candidate had been given an adequate opportunity to respond, so had been treated fairly.
Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness
The Breeze. Host revealed he and his wife had separated and disclosed her name. Privacy. Not upheld.
The Breeze. Opinion piece by Chris Gollins on an incident where he had been involved in an altercation as a cyclist with the complainant, a motorist; in the piece he referred to his recent appearance in Court and made comments about the complainant. Upheld (privacy). Declined to determine (good taste and decency). No order.