Search Rapua

Summary An item about the squalid living conditions of a Wanganui woman and her cats was broadcast on One Network News on TV One on 25 August 1999, between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm. It included footage showing the interior of the house she lived in, which was filmed during a period when the woman was in hospital. Rev and Mrs Williams complained direct to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the broadcast had breached the woman’s privacy. They considered that, in filming the interior of her house, the woman’s privacy had been grossly and blatantly violated by the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd. TVNZ recommended that the Authority should decline to uphold the complaint. It contended that there was a strong public interest in a story about a person living in New Zealand in such appalling conditions....

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....

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....

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…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – contained footage of SPCA raid at his property and photographs of cats and dogs – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – photographs legitimately obtained by SPCA – use of archive footage justified given ongoing interest in Mr Balfour’s activities and properties – footage of dogs in a playpen was innocuous and used as visual wallpaper to report on court proceedings in which Mr Balfour was found guilty of serious charges – footage of Mr Balfour being served with search warrant was not obtained by “prying” – harm to Mr Balfour in terms of underlying objective of privacy standard resulted from conviction, not the item – item did not…...

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.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge Morning Madhouse – host broadcast phone calls recorded at 3. 30am Australian time to Australian residents with horse racing-related surnames to ask for betting tips for the Melbourne Cup – allegedly in breach of privacy and good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – childish prank intended to be humorous – did not threaten standards of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people phoned were not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Edge Morning Madhouse, broadcast on The Edge on the morning of Tuesday 3 November, one of the hosts noted that the Melbourne Cup was “the race that stops the nation”, but questioned whether it might be “the race that wakes the nation”....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 146/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G CHAMBERS of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about CCTV and New Zealand increasingly becoming a surveillance society – included footage of two school pupils fighting – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – poor quality footage – no identifying features – pupils not identifiable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 22 June 2009, looked at the increase in CCTV video surveillance in New Zealand and whether the country was becoming a “surveillance society”. [2] The item included brief footage showing two school pupils fighting. The footage was grainy and looked to have been recorded on a cell phone. It showed a group of pupils standing around and jeering as one boy walked up to another and punched him in the head....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Special talkback show on Apna’s first birthday hosted by Programme Director – complainant was a former employee and telephoned the show – call disconnected – later caller told that the former employee’s employment had been terminated or he had resigned – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private fact disclosed – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcast did not deal with controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – broadcast did not deal with news and current affairs – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 30 April 2006, Apna 990am celebrated its first birthday and invited callers to express their views on air. The session was hosted by Apna’s Programme Director, Shahil Shah. [2] At about 4....

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…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-077 Dated the 18th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WOMEN IN FILM AND TELEVISION (Auckland) INC. (WIFT) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out an email from the complainant – pronounced complainant’s last name incorrectly – host made comments responding to the complainant’s email – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable – people who provide feedback cannot expect anonymity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a Breakfast segment called “On This Day”, broadcast on TV One at 6. 45am on 24 June 2009, the host referred to the “Jakarta incident” saying: On this day in 1982, a British Airways Boeing 747 en route from London to Auckland lost power in all four engines when it flew into volcanic ash off Indonesia. The pilots managed incredibly to glide the plane through the cloud of ash before restarting the engines and landing safely....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....