Search

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on alleged police pack rape of Louise Nicholas – footage shown of former police house where rapes allegedly occurred – current house owner alleged item breached privacy and was unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identification of current owner of house – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – current owner not referred to in item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item which reported developments following an accusation of rape by Louise Nicholas against three policemen was broadcast on One News on 31 January at 6. 00pm. The item included shots of the former police house where the rapes were alleged to have occurred....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the decision. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – “Ticking Time Bomb” – reported that Phillip Edwards, who had been charged with the murder of David McNee and convicted of manslaughter, had previously been implicated in an attack on another man – police did not prosecute – other man’s name disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – Privacy Principles iii), v), and vi) – no unjustified invasion of man’s privacy - man’s name disclosed as aspect of current affairs item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A 20/20 item, “Ticking Time Bomb”, revealed that Phillip Edwards, who was arrested for the murder of television celebrity David McNee, had earlier been implicated in an attack on another man....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB in Christchurch – host Mike Yardley – lead up to local body elections – one candidate facing private prosecution for threatening to kill – had been granted name suppression – situation discussed on Newstalk ZB and questions raised about impact of name suppression order – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – only privacy referred to AuthorityFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant not identified – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Newstalk ZB in Christchurch (host Mike Yardley) was aware that one of the candidates in the forthcoming local body elections was being prosecuted privately for threatening to kill, and had been granted name suppression by the District Court. The station broadcast this information and advised that the candidate had declined to allow the broadcast of his name....

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – two items about allegations of sexual abuse against former church worker – described in second item as “sexual monster” – named and photographs shown – alleged breach of privacy – second item included recent footage of church worker allegedly taken without permissionFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (i), and (iv) – disclosure was a breach of privacy principle (i) but justified in the public interest – not upheld Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (iii) – footage of man taken from public place – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Allegations of sexual abuse by the former supervisor at an orphanage run by the Presbyterian Church in the 1970s were made in items on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-1299 PDF930. 17 KB Complaint under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News and Late Edition – item about a Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing – complainant gave evidence – name suppressed – complained that she was identifiable from audio of voice and visual of part of her body – item included complainant’s occupation – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable because job description given together with visuals and audio – name suppression order given by court or tribunal not in itself grounds for privacy complaint – name suppression in this case given to all witnesses to ensure that they could continue to function effectively as Board employees – disclosure of B A’s role as witness in these circumstances highly offensive – upheldOrder Compensation to the complainant of $1500 under s....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item on alleged police pack rape of Louise Nicholas – footage shown of former police house where rapes allegedly occurred – current house owner alleged item breached privacy and was unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identification of current owner of house – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday reported on allegations of possible improper behaviour by the police, and a cover up in relation to accusations of rape by Louise Nicholas against three policemen. It was broadcast on TV One on 21 March at 7. 30pm. [2] The item included shots of the former police house where the rapes were alleged to have occurred. A car was shown in the driveway of the house....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989RadioWorks news item broadcast on More FM, Radio Live and Radio Pacific – complainants had been convicted of failing to move stock ahead of flooding – news item reported that Federated Farmers would fund appeal – SPCA said appeal condoned negligence – one named farmer reported as saying appeal should not be supported by Federated Farmers as flooding was not unusual and, on the occasion resulting in the conviction, neighbours had offered to move cattle – allegedly lacked balance, inaccurate, unfair and breached privacyFindingsPrinciple 2 (law and order) – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle 5 (fairness) – no unfairness in broadcaster’s dealings with the complainants – no unfairness with comments advanced – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

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....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon – caller allegedly referred to the complainant and his wife – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 3 (privacy), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – recording of broadcast in Hindi and translation incomplete – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] At approximately 7. 30pm on APNA 990 on 26 August 2010, the radio host spoke to a caller during a Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon. The caller commented to the effect that his neighbours had “run away”. Complaint[2] Moh Lateef made a formal complaint to APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the caller was referring to him and his wife, as they lived on the same street as the caller....

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about fathers frustrated with the Family Court system – included interview with father who had been involved in custody dispute – identified his eight-year-old daughter – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, in breach of daughter’s privacy and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts about child – not in child’s best interests – no public interest in disclosing facts – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on controversial issue under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and guideline 9i – child unnecessarily identified and exploited – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 13(1)(d) – payment to JB for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $3,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500 This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....