« Teapot pours out | Main | Online defamation: is it any different? »
Silly old TVNZ
By Steven | January 27, 2012
This is why I don’t like doing TV. I gave TVNZ news an interview on the teapot saga yesterday, explaining my views as below that the risk is low for anyone who publishes the contents of the tape.
Their broadcast asserts as a fact that “we can’t broadcast what was said for legal reasons”. Later the reporter says “legal experts” (who are the others, I wonder?) say police will struggle to charge the leakers, and then there’s me saying that it’s hard to see how the police could prove the publishers knew they were publishing an illegally obtained recording. Of course, that also applies to the media, not just the leakers.
So why is it that TVNZ can’t publish for legal reasons?
Topics: Internet issues, Journalism and criminal law, Media ethics | 25 Comments »
25 Responses to “Silly old TVNZ”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 27th, 2012 at 9:59 am
Could it be legal reasons other than criminal liability? For example, Standard 3 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice?
January 27th, 2012 at 10:06 am
I suppose that’s possible. (Standard 3 is about privacy). I’d like to see them spell out the concern though. The BSA has held that both strands of privacy – private facts and intrusion – involve questions of reasonable expectation of privacy, so many of the arguments would be similar. In addition, there’s a defence of public interest in the broadcasting codes. I would have expected a broadcaster to that the view that the defence applies here.
May 25th, 2020 at 11:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 8:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
June 9th, 2020 at 2:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
June 26th, 2020 at 4:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
June 27th, 2020 at 8:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
July 25th, 2020 at 11:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 2:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 18775 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 3rd, 2020 at 3:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 7th, 2020 at 11:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 8th, 2020 at 5:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 22nd, 2020 at 12:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 12:53 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 25th, 2020 at 4:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 80666 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 28th, 2020 at 8:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 7:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
October 3rd, 2020 at 3:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
November 2nd, 2020 at 12:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
November 8th, 2020 at 11:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
December 12th, 2020 at 11:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
December 30th, 2020 at 12:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
January 1st, 2021 at 2:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
January 1st, 2021 at 4:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]
January 7th, 2021 at 12:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=538 […]