Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-175 Decision No: 1996-176 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TEMALOTI FAKAOSI (2) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-054 Decision No: 1998-055 Dated the 21st day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LINDA TAYLOR-DEAN of Whitianga and THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL Broadcaster COROMANDEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD trading as COROMANDEL FM S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe results of a paternity test were revealed live during the broadcast of You be the Judge on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The child, who was 6 years old, was present in the studio when it was revealed that his mother’s former husband was his father. The Commissioner for Children, Ursula Cheer, John Caldwell and David Rowe, Gillian Davies, Marianne Hardgrave, Mike Doolan on behalf of the Children Young Persons and their Families Agency, Charles and Helen Harrington-Johnson, Bronwyn Hayward on behalf of the Children’s Television Foundation and Aroha Reihana complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast violated the child’s right to privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – “Hug-a-Ginga Day” promotion – listeners encouraged to “hug” people with red hair – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – recording of broadcast unavailable – majority of the Authority declines to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Friday 28 May 2010 was “Hug-a-Ginga Day”, run by The Edge radio station and in particular its breakfast programme, The Edge Morning Madhouse. The hosts encouraged the public to “hug” people with red hair....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item reported shooting of a police officer in Papatoetoe – stated which street the incident occurred in and showed a driveway cordoned off – letterbox number visible – reporter spoke to two neighbours – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identifiable individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10. 30pm on Tuesday 22 December 2009 reported that a policeman had been shot three times while investigating a car in a driveway. The Nightline reporter stated that two men had been questioned by police, and that “residents of [street and suburb where the incident occurred] had some questions of their own”. Two residents were shown commenting on the incident....

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: 1/94 Dated the 19th day of January 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by Mrs S. Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 79/94 Dated the 8th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SAM HUNT of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A repeat broadcast of an episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the surviving driver that the repeat broadcast, without his consent, breached his privacy. The complainant signed a consent form, and the timeline between the accident and the repeat broadcast more than four years later, in the absence of any further objections from him, suggested that he gave his consent freely, and not under duress. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The crash occurred on 4 December 2009, and the episode subject to complaint – a repeat broadcast – screened on 24 May 2014 on TV ONE....

Complaint3 News – complainants included one of two survivors of an air crash in which eight people died – message left on answerphone reporting progress and advising that they were not giving interviews to media – answerphone message omitting reference to interviews broadcast as part of news item – breach of privacy – unfair FindingsStandard 3, Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) – answerphone message aimed at all callers – information was released to the public – no intrusion in the nature of prying – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6e – time of stress for the complainants – high public interest – contents of message in public arena – use of message not insensitive or unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Sports Tonight – words “tough” and “disconnect” allegedly used by presenters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and privacy Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order) and 3 (privacy) – adequate response from broadcaster – use of the words did not threaten broadcasting standards in any way – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Friday 25 September 2009. Sports Tonight was broadcast on TV3 at 11pm on Wednesday 30 September 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline and 3 News – news items reported on release of convicted sex offender Stewart Murray Wilson – referred to Mr Wilson as “the Beast of Blenheim” and “the Beast” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to individuals and organisations so cannot be considered in relation to prisoners in general – label was assigned to Mr Wilson and the nature of his crimes many years ago and has been used extensively throughout the media – it has become a well-known nickname and the broadcaster cannot be held responsible for its continued use – broadcasts also contained Mr Wilson’s legal name – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – use of the label “the Beast of Blenheim” and…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]APNA 990 broadcast a segment disclosing that a named company allegedly owed it money and asking for the director of that company to 'contact us [as soon as possible] to sort out the account'. The Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast breached the privacy of the company director because a debt is a private matter between the debtor and the person or company to whom the debt is owed. The disclosure was highly offensive as the complainant could reasonably expect the debt to remain private, and there was no public interest in disclosing it to the public at large....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....