« The media’s revenge | Main | Picking up the Bill »
Target under fire
By Steven | July 30, 2008
A few years ago, I did a report for RNZ’s MediaWatch programme, raising questions about whether the hidden camera stings in TV3’s Target programme were complying with broadcasting standards and the law of trespass.
Over the years, Target has survived a string of broadcasting standards complaints. The producers deserve some credit. They always take care to try to ensure their criticisms are fair and that those stung get to have their say too.
Still, Target was also lucky. The wrong people complained, and when the right people complained, they relied on the wrong grounds and arguments.
Now, it seems, Target’s luck has run out. The BSA has upheld a complaint that strikes at the heart of Target’s methodology. It will need to change its ways or face some stiff penalties.
The BSA has always said that hidden cameras are by nature intrusive and unfair, and require some prima facie evidence of wrongdoing before they’re used, and some real public interest in the footage before it’s broadcast. The big problem for Target: how do these rules square with Target’s routine practice of secretly filming people it has no prior reason to believe have done anything wrong, and broadcasting footage that, for most of those depicted, doesn’t really show any significant wrongdoing.
Target argues that the programme as a whole is in the public interest, and that they shouldn’t have to justify each component of the broadcast.
The complaint was about a hidden camera trial involving caregivers who were invited into the Target home to care for a patient (an actor hired by Target). Four caregiver companies were used. Two of the caregivers performed pretty well: the BSA said there was no justification to screen them at all without their consent. Two others were guilty of minor indiscretions (drinking juice from the fridge and taking a bag of chippies without permission, giving the patient cookies contrary to instructions, not giving the patient privacy in the bathroom, etc). The BSA said this just wasn’t bad enough to create the public interest sufficient to justify the severe intrusion involved.
So the BSA upheld complaints based on fairness and privacy. TV3 tried to argue that it effectively had consent: it had written to the companies for their comments and none had objected to the use of the material. But as the BSA pointed out, that’s not the same as approaching the caregivers themselves. Besides, a failure to object is hardly the same thing as giving consent.
On the way the BSA has interpreted the codes in the past, I can’t see how the BSA could have reached any other conclusion. In fact, there may well have been private facts about the caregivers revealed, too. (The BSA didn’t consider that strand of its privacy rules).
So what does this mean for Target? Either an appeal to the High Court, or a change of methodology. The BSA pointed out that Target could have sought actual consent – and the caregivers depicted favourably might have been happy to provide it. (Or not). The others almost certainly wouldn’t – but their faces could be pixelated. The companies could still be identified, and the public interest served that way (presumably as long as this wouldn’t also effectively identify the employee).
Or Target could restrict itself to broadcasting hidden camera footage when it really had something significant to reveal.
I think hidden cameras are deeply intrusive, and TV3 doesn’t appreciate the harm it does to its sting victims – even those who aren’t shown misbehaving. The grainy gotcha flavour of hidden cameras creates an aura of evildoing right from the get-go.
But it’s fair to consider the other side. Target may well have done incalculable good in alerting us to the abuses committed by tradespeople who come into our homes, and perhaps in deterring that sort of misconduct. Isn’t there a sense in which it’s true that the programme as a whole is in the public interest? And it’s notable that the caregivers didn’t themselves complain – which highlights a serious and justified gripe by broadcasters: why should someone who had nothing to do with a programme be able to complain about the personal harm done to someone else?
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority, Privacy tort, Trespass | 48 Comments »
48 Responses to “Target under fire”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 23rd, 2020 at 12:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
May 27th, 2020 at 11:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 8:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 8:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
June 5th, 2020 at 7:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
June 23rd, 2020 at 6:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 1307 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
July 16th, 2020 at 1:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 52823 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
July 17th, 2020 at 7:34 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 80532 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 7:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 60824 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 8:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
August 18th, 2020 at 11:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
August 21st, 2020 at 10:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 2:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 3:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
September 3rd, 2020 at 4:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
September 4th, 2020 at 2:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
September 19th, 2020 at 9:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
September 26th, 2020 at 8:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 45382 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
October 2nd, 2020 at 6:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
October 5th, 2020 at 12:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
October 14th, 2020 at 4:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
October 20th, 2020 at 2:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 12:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 1:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
November 16th, 2020 at 1:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 6:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 5:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 25340 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 7:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
December 9th, 2020 at 6:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
December 9th, 2020 at 6:34 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 4:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
December 26th, 2020 at 7:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
January 15th, 2021 at 1:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
January 23rd, 2021 at 8:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
March 5th, 2021 at 9:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 53050 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
March 31st, 2021 at 7:21 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
April 20th, 2021 at 10:00 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
April 21st, 2021 at 11:34 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
May 5th, 2021 at 11:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 10:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 10:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
June 30th, 2021 at 9:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 1:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
August 21st, 2021 at 6:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 38335 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
October 11th, 2021 at 3:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
October 16th, 2021 at 11:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 2:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 51441 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]
December 11th, 2021 at 7:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 28333 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=137 […]