Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-023 Decision No: 1998-024 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by J of Palmerston North Broadcaster 92. 2XS (Palmerston North) S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Last Laugh – practical joke played on 17-year-old woman – filmed inside her bedroom with her family’s consent – allegedly a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of footage filmed inside complainant’s bedroom was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – no public interest in broadcast of footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to NM for breach of privacy $500. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the entertainment programme The Last Laugh was broadcast on TV2 at 11. 30pm on 5 December 2006. The series relied on family and friends to nominate practical jokers who would then become the subject of a practical joke....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on Air Force helicopter crash on ANZAC Day – first reporter reported from the site of the crash – second part of the item showed photographs of the men who died, parts of their Facebook pages and past interviews with them – showed footage of the sole survivor being taken to an ambulance on a stretcher – item included comment from head of the Air Force – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard does not apply to deceased individuals – servicemen’s family members not identified – no private facts disclosed about surviving serviceman – footage of survivor not obtained by prying – broadcaster exercised adequate care and sensitivity – information about the crash and the survivor of legitimate public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interviewed Phyllis Tarawhiti who had been recently released from a prison in Thailand – included footage of family and friends at her 50th birthday party – item also included a photo of a family portrait – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage from birthday party disclosed private facts – disclosure not highly offensive – 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 2 April 2007, interviewed Phyllis Tarawhiti, a woman who had recently been released from prison in Thailand and who had returned home to New Zealand....

ComplaintChannel Z – News item – arrest of man for the kidnapping of Kahurautete Durie – reported that the accused expected to have a hard time in jail – announcer expressed pleasure at that prospect – offensive, unfair and unbalanced – broadcaster upheld aspect that item failed to distinguish between fact and opinionFindingsPrinciple 1 – not offensive – no upholdPrinciple 2 – did not encourage breach of law – no upholdPrinciple 3 – accused not named – no breach of privacy – no upholdPrinciple 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdPrinciple 6 – facts sourced and distinguished from opinion – no upholdPrinciple 7 – gang spokesmen cited – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The arrest of a 54 year-old man accused of kidnapping Kahurautete Durie was reported in a news item on Channel Z broadcast at 8. 00am on 22 April 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live, 3 News and The Jono Project – items included hidden camera footage of reporters wearing burqas and speaking to the complainant outside her shop – complainant refused reporters entry to her shop and questioned their style of dress – items commented on complainant’s behaviour – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – footage obtained through misrepresentation and complainant was not informed of the nature of her participation – footage not justified by the public interest – complainant should have been given an opportunity to respond to the negative portrayal of her in the programmes – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – broadcasts did not disclose any private facts – filming occurred in a public place and complainant not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – 3 News and Campbell Live…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The complainant made a direct privacy complaint about a discussion on Chinese Voice Radio, alleging that it breached her child’s privacy because it disclosed details of her dental treatment. The Authority found that the broadcast did not breach any individual’s privacy, as no one was identifiable in the broadcast. The complainant’s concerns about the dentist’s actions and the disclosure of details about the treatment were more appropriately dealt with by other agencies. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During NZ Life, a talkback programme on Chinese Voice Radio 99. 4FM, the hosts discussed allegations made by a caller about a dentist who treated her child. The programme subject to complaint was broadcast on 13 February 2014. [2] CK, the caller, made a direct privacy complaint to this Authority, alleging that the broadcast breached her child’s privacy....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-121:McCloy and 14 Others and Classic Gold Radio - 1993-121 PDF406. 23 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-026 Decision No: 1996-027 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SUZI ARCHER of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

 The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News segment that discussed allegations and criticisms about the operations of the Tongan Health Society. The segment featured interviews with former employees and Board members who criticised the management of the Society, its CEO Dr Glenn Doherty, and called for an independent review of the Society. The Authority found that the requirements of the fairness and balance standards were met as TVNZ had taken reasonable steps to seek, and then adequately presented, the Society’s point of view on the issues raised in the programme. The Authority found the disclosure of the CEO’s request for a bonus and extracts from correspondence between the CEO and Board relating to this amounted to a breach of privacy, but determined that the defence of public interest applied on this occasion. Not Upheld: Balance Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-018 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDDIE HAYES of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster RADIO OTAGO LTD TRADING AS 93 FM, HASTINGS J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance...

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. ]The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of the complainant looking at the camera and giving the finger. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the complainant’s privacy. The footage of his private property had been filmed more than eight years earlier, and the complainant had made it clear he wanted no involvement in the programme. Despite repeated objections, his image continued to appear in the opening titles of series four of the programme. Upheld: PrivacyOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of a man looking at the camera and giving the finger. The episode was broadcast on 5 December 2013 on TV2....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-024 Dated the 6th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MICHAEL LAWS of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reporter allegedly made the comment “a line of fools” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 3 (privacy) – material complained about not in broadcasts identified by complainant – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Episodes of One News were broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 19 and 20 October 2010. Complaint [2] P David J Cooke complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that, during a news item, reporter Miriama Kamo had referred to a group of people as “a line of fools”....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

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 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....