Search Rapua

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....

The Authority has upheld a direct privacy complaint about a 1News item regarding a TVNZ on-demand series investigating Destiny Church. The item featured excerpts of an interview from the series, with a former member of the church who participated on the condition her face would remain hidden. The complaint was that the interviewee’s facial features were visible in the broadcast, which in the complainant’s view represented a ‘grave failure’ by the broadcaster to meet its obligations to protect the interviewee, given the seriousness of the circumstances and risk of harm to them. TVNZ accepted there was a breach of the privacy standard on the basis the interviewee’s face was visible to some viewers in certain viewing conditions, which the interviewee had not consented to. The Authority agreed and upheld the complaint as a breach of the interviewee’s privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that commentary during live coverage of a Black Caps test match amounted to socially irresponsible alcohol promotion, in breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The subject of alcohol purchase and consumption did not comprise most of the segment. Aside from commentator Scotty Stevenson stating he was ‘all for […] casually deleting a bunch of tins’, the discussion did not explicitly reference alcohol consumption. Any inferences that could be made about alcohol consumption were not antisocial and did not amount to advocacy of excessive alcohol consumption. The balance and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-007 Decision No: 1998-008 Decision No: 1998-009 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLAN HILL of Wellington and GLADYS GARDNER of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Motorway Patrol breached the privacy standard. A short segment of the programme focused on a Senior Constable attending a crash on an Auckland motorway. It featured footage of the complainant as a ‘Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to check on the person in the crashed vehicle. The Authority acknowledged the impact of the broadcast on the complainant, who said they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes and were not asked for consent. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, the Authority found the broadcast did not disclose information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Marcus Lush Breakfast Show – host disclosed the street address of the house where the television programme Outrageous Fortune was filmed – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – no “identifiable individual” – right to privacy attached to the individual not to the house – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Marcus Lush Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Live on the morning of 11 February 2008, the radio host discussed the lack of famous film and television set locations in New Zealand that people can visit and pay homage to. He told viewers that he had received an email informing him of the street address of the house used as the fictional West family’s residence in the television programme Outrageous Fortune. [2] At approximately 8....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

The Authority upheld aspects of seven complaints under the privacy and fairness standards, regarding broadcasts by RNZ which included material stolen from the Waikato District Health Board and released by hackers on the dark web. The broadcasts were about a child under the care of Oranga Tamariki, who was effectively ‘living’ in a WDHB hospital because Oranga Tamariki was unable to find them a placement. The Authority found the child was identifiable and their privacy was breached on a segment on Morning Report. While there was a legitimate public interest in the story, this did not extend to all the details included in the item. The Authority also found the Morning Report segment breached the privacy of the child’s family but not of the social worker involved. The fairness standard was also breached as the broadcasts were unfair to the child and their family....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary A psychiatrist and the mother of a young person suffering from a mental illness were interviewed by Kim Hill on Nine to Noon broadcast on National Radio on 4 August 1999 beginning at 9. 40am. Mr Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the interview lacked balance because it did not include the point of view of anyone who had been diagnosed as suffering a mental illness. He also complained that, because the mother was identified, her son would also have been identifiable, and it was a breach of the Privacy Act to release his medical details. Mr Boyce argued that the interviewer perpetuated myths and stereotypes about those with mental illness. In its response, RNZ emphasised that the focus of the interview was the availability of treatment for young people suffering mental illness....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Te Karere item reporting on the tangihanga of a prominent Māori activist and author breached the offensive and disturbing content, and privacy standards. The complaint was that the general fact of filming inside the whare tūpuna (meeting house) at the tangi was highly offensive as it was contrary to tikanga and the deceased’s wishes, and that the broadcast breached the complainant’s, the deceased’s and tūpuna (ancestors’) privacy. The Authority acknowledged the broadcast contributed to the distress and upset felt by the complainant. However, applying the standards and having regard to external cultural advice, the Authority did not consider the broadcast was likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress to Te Karere’s audience....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-069 Decision No: 1996-070 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by GRAHAM BENNETT of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about items on Newshub and The AM Show, which reported on a Police raid of a gang house and featured footage of the complainant’s property, with the house number blurred. The Authority found that the privacy standard did not apply in this case, as the complainant was not identifiable in the broadcast and no private information or material was disclosed about them. As the house was only filmed to the extent visible from the street, the broadcaster did not intrude upon the complainant’s interest in solitude or seclusion in a way that was highly offensive. The Authority recognised the public interest in the broadcast and found that the harm alleged to have been caused by the complainant did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression.   Not Upheld: Privacy  ...

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

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…...

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News breached the complainant and her grandchild’s privacy. The item, which reported on the implications of GP shortages in Northland, included footage of the complainant and her grandchild (who was in a moonboot with crutches) leaving a medical centre, and of them in the waiting room. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of health information and encouraged broadcasters to obtain the consent of persons filmed in a medical centre (particularly where children are involved). However, the Authority found there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular facts disclosed (being attendance at a medical centre) noting the complainant was initially depicted outside the centre, from a public footpath, where there was no expectation of privacy. No additional information was disclosed by the subsequent footage from within the waiting room. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item looked at “cheap lunches for kids” as part of series on child poverty – reporter interviewed children on their way to school and asked them what they had for breakfast and lunch – children were obscured by traffic, and had their faces and in some cases their clothing pixellated – footage allegedly in breach of children’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – children were not identifiable and so footage did not breach their privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live was introduced as follows: Amongst the thousands of responses we have had to our series on child poverty, perhaps the question most often asked is, “What are the parents doing?...