Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon – caller allegedly referred to the complainant and his wife – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 3 (privacy), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – recording of broadcast in Hindi and translation incomplete – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] At approximately 7. 30pm on APNA 990 on 26 August 2010, the radio host spoke to a caller during a Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon. The caller commented to the effect that his neighbours had “run away”. Complaint[2] Moh Lateef made a formal complaint to APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the caller was referring to him and his wife, as they lived on the same street as the caller....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two hosts on George FM Breakfast asked listeners to send in the names and profiles of female users of Instagram described as ‘do-nothing bitches’. The names of two women, A and B, were submitted. The hosts went on to comment extensively on A’s profile, making inappropriate and disparaging comments about her, and also contacted A and interviewed her on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks having found breaches of the fairness and good taste and decency standards was insufficient, and also found that the broadcast breached the privacy of both women....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Port FM Breakfast Show the presenters allegedly mentioned 'Jimmy from Omarama'. The Authority declined to determine a complaint from Jimmy Courtney that the broadcast breached his privacy, as the broadcaster was unable to provide a recording of the broadcast. The Authority however noted that on the basis of the information before it, it appeared unlikely the broadcast amounted to a breach of privacy. The Authority also recorded its expectation that broadcasters retain recordings of broadcasts for 35 days following the broadcast. Declined to determine: Privacy Introduction[1] During the Port FM Breakfast Show the presenters allegedly mentioned 'Jimmy from Omarama' in relation to some email correspondence with him about Port FM's weather reports. Mr Courtney had disputed the towns/regions included in the report, and the presenters apparently 'had a laugh' about his email on air....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad showed dog handlers with the Department of Corrections searching visitors to a prison. The episode showed two occasions of the complainant (SW) being searched; firstly, her bag was searched when she was driving onto prison premises, and secondly, a sniffer dog identified that she was carrying contraband (tobacco) inside the prison and she was shown surrendering this to Corrections staff. In both instances her face was blurred. The Authority upheld SW’s complaint that broadcasting the footage breached her privacy. She was identifiable despite her face being blurred (by clothing, body type, voice, etc), and the disclosure of private facts about her, including prescription drugs she was taking, among other things, was highly offensive....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-057 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D S ROBERTS of Kaikoura TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Breeze – host revealed the fact that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break – statement included wife’s first name – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on The Breeze, broadcast between 6am and 6. 30am on Monday 19 January 2009, the host revealed to listeners that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break. The host disclosed his wife’s first name. Referral to the Authority [2] Barbara White lodged a privacy complaint about the broadcast with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Solid Gold – The Edge – The Rock – messages broadcast over 4 days asking anyone who knew whereabouts of complainant to contact The RadioWorks – improper use of missing person report – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsPrinciple 3, guideline 3a – privacy principle (iii) – disclosure of name because of a company’s unpaid debt – intrusion into seclusion – majority uphold; privacy principle (iv) – no intention to ridicule – no uphold; privacy principle (v) – no public interest in name disclosure – majority uphold Principle 5, guideline 5c – reference to complainant unfair – majority uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – complainants attended and participated in auction – complainants claimed that they would not be filmed – shown on programme – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 6 – irreconcilable conflict of facts as to particulars of the request not to film – decline to determine Standard 3 Guideline 3a Privacy Principle iii – no intentional intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A couple was shown making the final bid in the auction for a house during an episode of the reality series Location, Location, Location. The bid was unsuccessful as it failed to reach the reserve. The episode was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 17 July 2002. [2] BQ and CR, the couple making the bid, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Summary A news item reported that an 18 month old girl was rescued from a fiercely burning home as a result of the heroism of a fire officer. The item was screened on One Network News, broadcast between 6. 00-7. 00 pm on 15 July 1999, and repeated on Breakfast beginning at 7. 00 am the following morning. Mr Le Comte complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that footage showing the young unconscious girl receiving medical treatment was an invasion of her dignity and privacy. As the item had emphasised the fire officer’s heroism, had not disclosed offensive facts and had not ridiculed the young girl, Television New Zealand Ltd did not accept that the item had breached her privacy. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on “Chloe of Wainuiomata” receiving diversion for shoplifting – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – private facts disclosed were in the public arena – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 30 April 2008, reported that Chloe, a woman who gained notoriety in a 1990s television programme and who was nicknamed “Chloe from Wainuiomata”, had been charged with shoplifting. During the item, the presenter stated: Chloe, whose slippers made her a 90s celebrity, has been charged with shoplifting. The court heard that Chloe, formally of Wainuiomata, tried to steal twenty three dollars and sixty four cents worth of pet care products from a Napier supermarket....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-176:R and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-176 PDF497. 89 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Five Campbell Live items featured the complainant, Margaret Harkema, a former director of the Valley Animal Research Centre, and investigated concerns that she was using TradeMe to rehome beagles that were bred or used for testing. The Authority upheld her complaints that the programmes were unfair, misleading and breached her privacy. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, PrivacyNot Upheld: Law and OrderOrders: Section 13(1)(d) $2,000 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy; Section 16(1) $12,000 legal costs to the complainantIntroduction[1] Campbell Live carried out an investigation, spanning five separate broadcasts, into matters involving the now closed Valley Animal Research Centre (VARC), and its former director, Margaret Harkema....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on complaints by two families about the allegedly unsatisfactory supply and installation of their swimming pools, purchased from The Spa and Pool Factory (SPF). During the item, the reporter also noted that the Auckland Council was investigating SPF regarding ‘potentially fraudulent documentation’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the director of SPF that the item was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of his privacy. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead viewers, going directly to Mr Radisich and to Auckland Council to seek their comments on the issues raised....