Search Rapua

SummaryConcern about repeat drink/driving offences was dealt with in an item broadcast on both 3 News and Nightline, on TV3 between 6. 00–7. 00pm and 10. 30–11. 00pm respectively on 22 February 1999. The item included footage of the police dealing with drivers who had been drinking, and included a segment showing a woman struggling violently as she was put into a police car. Ms M, the struggling woman, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the item breached her privacy. The incident screened had occurred seven years previously, she wrote. She recalled that she had been struggling at the time as she considered that she had not been treated fairly by the police when they insisted that she undergo a breath test although she had not been driving. Subsequently, she advised, she was convicted of assault but the drink driving charge had been dismissed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-161 Decision No: 1997-162 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by Mr X of Napier Broadcaster H B MEDIA GROUP LTD of Hastings S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the hosts discussed their conversation with a guest the previous day who was described as a successful voice coach, and who gave tips about putting on a ‘sexy voice’. One of the hosts prank called two phone sex chat lines and spoke to the operators to see whether they used a ‘sexy voice’. One of the operators he spoke with was the complainant, who discussed practical aspects of the service, including how calls were conducted and paid for. A distinctive sound could be heard in the background of the call. The Authority upheld a complaint from the operator that this broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge’s Smash! 20 countdown show, a caller successfully answered a series of questions based on the songs in the countdown and won a prize. While taking the caller’s personal details, the announcer left the phone channel in ‘on-air’ mode and inadvertently broadcast the caller’s full name, address, school, date of birth and mobile number. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the caller’s privacy. The caller was clearly identifiable and disclosed a high level of personal detail on air, over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Authority acknowledged the caller’s disclosure was the result of an unfortunate technical error on the announcer’s part, and that the broadcaster took immediate actions to respond to the breach. The Authority did not make any order in these circumstances. Upheld: PrivacyNo OrderIntroduction[1] During The Edge’s Smash!...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-003 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT S of Cambridge Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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....

Complaint Babies – documentary about 47-year-old woman having fifth child – first child when aged 18 – adopted at birth – adopted child shown and first name given – consent not given to broadcast the material – breach of privacy of child – complaint upheld – material objected to edited out in case of rebroadcast – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken insufficient – $500 compensation This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of Babies broadcast on 28 June 2001 told the story of "Maggie" who was having a child at the age of 47 years of age. The programme said that Maggie first gave birth when aged 18 and unmarried. It reported that the child was adopted out and included visuals of the child (as a young woman), gave her first name and said that she, too, had had a child....

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....