Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item which reported on the road toll over Labour Weekend and showed images of an accident where a woman was hit by a truck. The Authority found the privacy, fairness, accuracy and law and order standards were not breached. The complainant alleged the driver of the truck was identified and the broadcast gave the impression they were at fault for the accident. The Authority found the item did not identify the driver of the truck nor reveal private information about them. The item did not refer to the driver, nor give the impression the truck driver was not driving safely. The item reported on what police had said were potential causes of crashes, but it was clear this was not referring to the specific incidents which had taken place over the weekend. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness, Accuracy, Law and Order...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-006:Walker and Triple M Ltd - 1990-006 PDF1. 3 MB...

Complaint Choppers – rescue series – intrusion into grief – breach of privacy – complainant said consent to broadcast withheld FindingsPrivacy – conflict as to whether consent given – decline to determine Standard 5 – item not news, current affairs or documentary – no uphold Standard 6 – majority – footage indistinct and fleeting – similar to that which would be used in news item – informational content – no uphold – minority – complainant identifiable and clearly in shock – friend obscured – unfair This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Choppers followed the activities of a helicopter rescue service. The rescue of a young woman who had fallen down a cliff was shown in the episode broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV2 on 8 August 2002. [2] Christine Diamond, the woman rescued, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item discussing copyright in photos – featured a woman who believed a photo she took had been posted on the internet as belonging to someone else – stated that American photographer claimed to have taken the photo – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was misleading in conveying that the woman owned the photo and that Mr Bush had “stolen” it and was claiming it as his own – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair in implying that the complainant did not own the photo – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant sufficiently identifiable from website details – but website and photo in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld OrdersSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $1,000 This…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about ongoing Family Court proceedings concerning custody of a child – father interviewed anonymously and gave details of evidence and proceedings – brief visuals of baby – mother believed that as baby was identifiable, she was also identifiable – personal details broadcast about her – some allegedly inaccurate – child shown without mother’s permission – alleged breach of privacy of mother and baby – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – referral outside statutory time limit – s....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Heartland – programme included image of the complainant – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard P9 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed – disclosure of the footage of him would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A episode of Heartland called “Grey Lynn: Summer in the City” was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland at 10. 10pm on 27 November 2010, and repeated at 8am on 28 November 2010. Near the beginning of the programme, a shot of the complainant leaning out a window in his house was briefly shown. Referral to the Authority[2] Te Awhitu Ransfield lodged a direct privacy complaint with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reported on the use of anti-depressants – excerpts from a radio talkback show were used in the item – two excerpts involved the complainant discussing her use of anti-depressant drugs – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable in the item – item did not disclose any private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on the 20/20 programme, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 30 August 2007, examined the use of the anti-depressant drug Aropax and the difficulty some people had experienced when trying to stop using it. The item included excerpts from a radio talkback discussion concerning the use of anti-depressants....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-001:Cook and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-001 PDF301. 93 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Newshub reported on ‘cash for job’ work scams in New Zealand. The reporter described the experiences of one worker, who alleged he had been exploited by his employer and told to pay $30,000 for his job as a technician at an internet café. GL, who was named and whose photo was shown during the item, was said to have ‘demanded’ $15,000 from the worker as part of the scam. GL complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair, because he did not demand or receive any payment from the worker and he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Thane & Dunc included an interview with a man, X, who had a relationship with a couple (the complainant and Z). During the interview, X described the nature of the relationship. He did not name the couple, referring to them as ‘A’ and ‘B’. A second interview with X was broadcast the following day, during which the hosts told X they had spoken with the couple, who alleged the relationship was abusive. The hosts interrogated X about his behaviour, then demanded X apologise and agree to make no further contact with the couple involved. The Authority upheld a complaint that these broadcasts breached the privacy of the complainant and Z....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of the dairy industry in the Waikato region. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of dairy farming, and breached a number of other broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. The item was not inaccurate or misleading in the ways alleged by the complainant; rather, it focused on instances of bad practice within the dairy industry and did not suggest these were commonplace. Furthermore, the item did not breach the privacy of a local farming family, as they were not identifiable or otherwise referred to in the footage....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on judicial review proceedings concerning the Parole Board’s decision to release convicted rapist Peter McNamara after serving one third of his sentence – contained footage of Mr McNamara on his driveway and of a child getting into his car – item stated that Mr McNamara had “smuggled” his semen out of prison – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – child not identified in the item – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “smuggled” accurate – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr McNamara and the child were treated fairly – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 (fairness) This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintHolmes – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – women able to be identified – breach of women’s privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Complaints of FL, Mr Elliott and Mr Herrmann – upheld; Ms MacDonald’s complaint – one aspect upheld by broadcaster; one aspect subsumed under Standard G4 Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $5,000 compensation to each of the women whose privacy was breached(3) $2,500 costs to the Crown Cross-reference: 2002-071–072 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 May 2001 reported on sensitive information about two women which had been found on a second-hand computer hard drive. Excerpts from the interviews with the two women were included in the broadcast. [2] FL, one of the women concerned, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – talkback – topic – global warming – complainant tried to contribute – described as idiot – named as Brian – call terminated Findings Principle 3 – identity not revealed – no uphold Principle 4 – insufficient information – decline to determine Principle 5 – opportunity to terminate call without rudeness not taken – broadcaster irresponsible and abusive – uphold – no Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Global warning was a topic discussed on talkback on Newstalk ZB, hosted by Leighton Smith, on the morning of 16 July 2001. At about 11. 12am, the complainant telephoned, gave his name as "Jim", and challenged the views advanced by a professor who had been interviewed, and who had disputed the global warming theory....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad featured footage taken at a named international airport in New Zealand, during which a Ministry for Primary Industries detector dog found an apple in a couple’s bag. PN, a Quarantine Officer, was shown questioning the couple about the apple and issuing them with a fine. The faces of PN and the couple, and PN’s identity tag, were blurred and PN was not named. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment breached PN’s privacy. While it found that, despite the blurring, PN was identifiable in the broadcast, it did not consider that any private information was disclosed during the segment....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live reported on a couple who faced bankruptcy after buying a house infested with termites. The item disclosed the names of the vendor, the company and staff responsible for the building report, and the real estate agent. It showed footage of the real estate agent’s office window, which had printed on it the names and phone numbers of the real estate agent and his business partner. A majority of the Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached the agent’s and the business partner’s privacy. The agents’ details were publicly available, the footage of their phone numbers was brief and it was not broadcast for the purpose of encouraging harassment; no causal link was demonstrated between the broadcast and the alleged harassment....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from seven members of the public about an episode of Sunday, which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. Three individuals were filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon the three individuals’ interest in seclusion. All three individuals were discussing a sensitive matter and could not have reasonably expected their one on-one conversation to be recorded in its entirety and broadcast. The Authority found that on its face the broadcast breached the privacy of these individuals....

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....