Steven Price

My book

Media Minefield


Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act


Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)

Members

My MediaWatch report about Target

[Target theme]

It’s the theme that strikes fear into bumbling, cheating, pantie-sniffing tradespeople up and down the country. TV3’s Target has used its hidden cameras to  expose theft, fraud, incompetence, rip-offs and shocking behaviour by tradespeople left behind in homes.Vincent Burke, the show’s producer, says that right from the very first trial for the show, when the editor set up five faults in his own house, it was plain that there’s a huge problem with service in New Zealand.

WHAT WE FOUND IN THE FIRST 19 OR 18 PEOPLE WHO CAME TO THE HOUSE, WE HAD ONE GUY THAT WENT THROUGH ALL THE DRAWERS IN THE HOUSE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO STEAL, WE HAD ONE GUY THAT SNIFFED THE UNDERWEAR, ANOTHER GUY THAT BLEW UP THE FRIDGE, WE HAD ONE GUY THAT WIPED HIS URINE OFF THE EDGE OF THE TOILET SEAT WITH A FACECLOTH AND PUT THE FACECLOTH BACK, WE HAD ONE GUY THAT URINATED IN A BASIN IN THE LAUNDRY AND POURED THE URINE IN WITH THE CLOTHES

He says the editor was stunned at the results.

IT REALLY FREAKED HIM OUT. BECAUSE HE WAS NOT USED TO THAT KIND OF INVASION. IT REALLY AFFECTED HIM EMOTIONALLY.

Ironically, many of the people caught on Target’s hidden cameras feel just the same way. One is Chris, who doesn’t want his full name used, but who was one of Target’s targets last year. Target’s actor visited Chris’s business to test a wheel alignment, and filmed him secretly in the outside yard and the workshop. His reaction?

SHOCKED AND AMAZED… TO ME IF SOMEONE FILMS YOU WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND THEN MAKES IT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE BY PUTTING IT ON TV, I’VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

Target faulted his service, and Chris reckons it was mostly a fair cop. And he thinks that hidden cameras can sometimes be justified when they reveal outrageous misconduct. But he’s blowed if he can understand why Target had to sneak some film of him. The footage they broadcast had little to do with Target’s assessment of his wheel alignment service. In fact, Target could just as easily have assessed his service without using hidden cameras. He went to his lawyer.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A BREACH OF MY PRIVACY AND THE LAWYER FELT THAT AS WELL.

They lodged a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the statutory agency that rules on breaches of broadcasting standards such as fairness, accuracy and respect for privacy. But the BSA rejected the complaint, saying:

THE FOOTAGE BROADCAST RECORDED FACTS WHICH COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS OFFENSIVE.

Actually, it wasn’t so much the facts about his service that were revealed that bothered Chris, it was the way those facts were collected. The BSA’s reasoning disappointed Chris’s lawyer, Sarah Bacon, a partner at Izard Weston.

IT MIGHT BE THAT THE CODES OF PRACTICE FOR BROADCASTERS MIGHT ACTUALLY NEED AMENDMENT TO REALLY BRING IN THOSE SORT OF NEW PRIVACY ISSUES.

In the past, the BSA has said that the use of hidden cameras is an extreme measure that can only be justified in exceptional circumstances. There has to be a strong and legitimate public interest in the story and no other reasonable way to get the information. The BSA also says that while it might cut journalists more slack when they’re using hidden cameras to gather information, a decision to broadcast that information requires stronger justification.

Due to a quirk in the way Chris’s case was brought, some of these arguments couldn’t be made. But these limits on the use of hidden cameras are consistent with the BBC’s guidelines, and also with Television New Zealand’s. TV3, though, has no formal policy on the use of hidden cameras. I told Vincent Burke I had a hunch that Target didn’t sit down every time it broadcast hidden camera footage, and analyse whether that particular footage was in the public interest to see.

OH NO WE DON’T. WHAT WE DO IS WE SAY, THE SHOW IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THE PROCESS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IT IS EQUAL, AND IT’S EVEN AND IN ITS TREATMENT AND I THINK THAT’S WHERE WE COME FROM.

IS THERE A DANGER THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF TELEVISION ARE STARTING TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST?WELL, THE REQUIREMENTS OF TELEVISION HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT AUDIENCES EXPECT AND WHAT AUDIENCES WANT TO WATCH. AND WHAT AUDIENCES WATCH OR DON’T WATCH.

AND HAVING PICTURES?AND HAVING PICTURES. YES, ABSOLUTELY.

Burke says the channels have different audiences, and the audiences have different expectations. TV3’s audience is young and media-savvy and accepts that the boundaries are shifting and that TV is a part of our culture.

But that strikes me as an odd justification for secretly filming someone innocently at their workplace, splashing their image over national television, in a show that may or may not be criticising that work, where the hidden cameras sometimes aren’t actually necessary to assess the level of service provided.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. BUT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW AS A PROGRAMME MAKER, WE’VE SET UP A SYSTEM, A FORMAT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT AND IS FAIR WITHIN ITSELF. AND IF WE WERE TO DO AS YOU SUGGEST, AND CHOP AND CHANGE, ONE WE WOULD HAVE TO DRAW LINES IN THE SAND WHICH WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY, AND COULD THEN BE RIGHTLY CRITICISED FOR DRAWING THE LINE IN THE SAND IN THE WRONG PLACE; AND WE’D BE VULNERABLE TO THAT. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE USUALLY HAVE TO MAKE SENSE FILMICALLY, AND IN STORY TERMS, WE HAVE TO MAKE SENSE OF IT. AND TO CHOP AND CHANGE MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR ME AS A FILM-MAKER, AND MY PERSONAL FEELING IS THE GREATER GOOD OF THE SHOW OUTWEIGHS THAT.

In other words, in order for the show to work, it can’t concede that some of the footage doesn’t need to be shown – it would look like it was playing favourites, and it would wreck the integrity of the show, which as a whole is in the public interest. He also points out even when you’re just dropping off a computer or picking it up, the repairer might be making false claims or promises which it’s useful to get on tape. Then again, they might not, but Target will broadcast that poor shop assistant anyway.

WE’VE HAD VERY LITTLE NEGATIVE RESPONSE TO THAT CASUAL FILMING IF YOU LIKE WHICH WE DO WHEN WE GO AND TAKE A REPAIR IN TO BE FIXED.

HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE DO YOU THINK WOULD CONSENT?DON’T KNOW.

Burke reckons Target bends over backwards to be fair to those caught on camera. Some of them disagree, but Burke notes that Target has never lost a case before the BSA. And at the end of the day, he can justifiably claim that the  show has helped raise the public’s awareness about consumer rights, and tradespeople’s awareness about how seriously we take their misconduct. A Hamilton cleaner caught on camera behaving offensively even ended up with a criminal conviction for being unlawfully in a place. Hang on. Unlawfully in a place? Wasn’t he invited into the home to do the cleaning?

HE WAS CLEARLY ON THE PREMISES QUITE LAWFULLY TO CLEAN. HE WAS NOT LAWFULLY ON THE PREMISES TO MASTURBATE IN THE WOMAN’S BED.

SO MAYBE BY ANALOGY HIDDEN CAMERAS – SOMEONE CARRYING HIDDEN CAMERAS IS LAWFULLY ON THE PREMISES TO BUY A PRODUCT OR USE A SERVICE – BUT IS NOT LAWFULLY ON THE PREMISES IN ORDER TO FILM SOMEBODY DOING THEIR JOB?WELL TEST IT IN COURT.

And it may well be tested in court, because there’s a strong argument that Target’s hidden-camera carriers are trespassing – even when they stick to the parts of a shop where customers are allowed to go, as Target does. So it’s not clear that Target’s use of hidden cameras is always lawful. Or that it always complies with broadcasting codes. And as for the ethics of hidden cameras, your opinion may depend on whether your bedroom is invaded by a dodgy tradesperson – or whether your workplace is invaded by a television company.