Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reporter went in search of the famous actor Michael Crawford in Kerikeri – locals were informed that he lived in the area – part of Mr Crawford’s gate was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Crawford was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about Mr Crawford – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During an item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 on 15 March 2012, a reporter travelled to the small Northland town of Kerikeri in search of British actor Michael Crawford at his “South Pacific hideaway”. A number of locals were shown footage of Mr Crawford in his various roles and were informed that he lived in the area....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two items on Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough. The Authority did not uphold complaints from Mr Gough that the people interviewed made false claims about him, that his response was not fairly presented, and that the programmes breached his privacy. The broadcasts carried a high level of public interest, the claims made by those interviewed were clearly framed as their personal opinions and experiences, and the Authority was satisfied that the broadcaster had sufficient basis for the story. Mr Gough was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy Introduction[1] Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough, who restored and mounted original war medals, and also sold replicas to complete sets of medals....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 53/95 Dated the 22nd day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-144 Decision No: 1997-145 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by STEVE ALLOWAY of Auckland Broadcaster 95bFM of Auckland S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-068 Decision No: 1998-069 Dated the 25th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NEW ZEALAND POLICE (OPERATION TAM) TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-136 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN ROSS of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 19/94 Dated the 28th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JANICE DUNPHY of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport – Terror Talkback – breakfast host Martin Devlin telephoned randomly a person with same name as sportsperson in the news – alleged intentional intrusion in person’s seclusion – breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 – Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle iii – the broadcast telephone call did not amount to prying – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “Terror Talkback” is a regular feature of the Martin Devlin Breakfast Show on Radio Sport. It involves a telephone call to a person selected randomly who has the same name as a sportsperson in the news. At about 6. 20am on 23 February 2004, the host referred to the appointment of a Mr Shand as the Manager of the All Blacks. He then indicated he had randomly chosen the telephone number of a Mr Shand....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – Valentine’s Day “Win a Divorce” promotion – broadcast was sabotaged by participants – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – concept of the promotion was not reflected in the broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] The Rock radio station ran a promotion called “Win a Divorce” which culminated in a broadcast during Robert and Jono’s Drive Show on the afternoon of 14 February 2012. The hosts rang a second participant on the instructions of the first, her partner, who allegedly wanted a divorce....

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an item on Asliyat responding to petitions made in opposition to Radio Virsa staff, in relation to Gurdwara management and the sale of a Gurdwara property. The host called into question the righteousness of the petitioners as Sikhs, including the complainant’s son, who the host identified as someone at the centre of a family scandal (which included issues of drug addiction and allegations of theft and other ‘bad things’). The complainant submitted the broadcast identified his son and disclosed private information in a way that was highly offensive and damaging to the reputation of his son and son’s family. Based on the information disclosed, the majority of the Authority found the complainant’s son was not identifiable beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matter dealt with in the broadcast....

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of the programme Renters breached the privacy of the tenants of the properties featured. The majority of the Authority did not find any of the tenants were identifiable. As the privacy standard only applies to identifiable individuals, the standard did not apply. The minority view was that the information disclosed was adequate to enable viewers, beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matters disclosed, to identify one individual and the information had the quality of private information such that the disclosure breached the privacy standard. Not Upheld by Majority: Privacy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....