Balani’s furniture store is in Auckland.
BE: Judy also spotted my mistake, Jeremy, and I’ve since corrected it. George used to do breakfast on the original Radio Windy and I followed him at 9am. Funny to see him in his new role. Must remember him if we need a new bed. The brass of those two women!
I was never a fan of the target program where they targeted typically low wage earners/trades people who could not afford legal recourse. They never tried there act out on lawyers, doctors etc who could afford to take them to court. There was always a disturbingly voyueristic tone to the program.
It is kind of ironic that the program that sought to expose the misdeeds of others was itself a bit pervy.
Indeed Phillip, I stopped watching Target after they did a “fat test” on a variety of takeaway foods but only those sold by mum and dad takeaway stores. Not a single Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, Burger King, or KFC was “targeted”. Unlike Fair Go which has a reputation for taking on the big-boys, Target has a clear strategy of only focusing on business that a) are unlikely to be able to sue it and b) are unlikely to be significant Mediaworks advertisers.
It’s also socially corrosive in that it emphasises the small percentage of bad tradesmen at the expense of the reputation of all the others. My brother in law is a tradesman and says Target has made his work-life a lot harder.
I’m no fan of the BSA but in this case “they done good”. Target’s smug, sanctimonious, voyeuristic self-satisfaction lost me as a viewer many years ago. Phillip and Solly are spot on about Target picking on those who can’t defend themselves too.
I put 3News on to George’s story after seeing the footage on youtube. Shoplifters of this type need to be caught. Glad I could help. George has been given a name from a Police officer in the Waikato – they now know who one of the women is.
damn, I was really looking forward to Target sending a baby into a dairy to buy cigarettes, alcopops and legal highs…
hope they don’t move onto Tabacco Companies, the Alcohol Industry and Fast Foods NZ…
An extremely interesting article and having read Philip’s and Sally’s comments it makes me wonder whether TV3 & Mediaworks will continue with this segment and if so will they do so on the basis that many tradesmen & mum and dad retailers will be ignorant of the BSA ruling. This then poses the question of how to make this ruling more widely known to the group.
A way overdue ‘definition’ in a legal system full of huge holes (touchy feeley no litigation law & ACC has rendered NZ’ers quite impotent when it comes to the law). Voyeurism is all that segment was about anyway. Very low brow TV. Cheap maternalistic and paternalistic rubbish in my opinion (very much like a gossipy womens magazine). “Tutt tutt! Don’t do that dear, it’s not nice”.
So why exactly is this a “worrying precedent” Brian?
When a photographer wants to use a photo he has shot of a model, that model first has to sign a model release contract. And they are both just doing their jobs! But you media people seem to think you have a god given right to interfere in private people’s business.
You will understand that my initial response was not at all the same as yours. In fact, this electrician’s appearance on Target at all may in itself leave negative impressions about him: “It’s safe to say that naughty tradesman [sic] are the biggest audience draw-card on the programme.” Says it all really.
BE: it isn’t a worrying precedent for me; it’s a worrying precedent for Target as the title of the post clearly states. You might consider reading what’s been written before sounding off about “you media people”. I take no position in the post, merely outline the issues. Before labelling me you might like to check back on posts I’ve written about Target in the past. I’m tempted to respond, “You idiots…”
The BSA’s decision doesn’t preclude home-owners from having cameras inside their house. Also, Target can still do what they’ve been doing as long as they tell tradesmen and women that they may be filmed. Target will be able to say who has agreed to be filmed and who hasn’t.
@Ross, depends where the cameras are and what for.
I recall a recent criminal conviction for a householder who installed a camera for voyeuristic purposes.
Hard to see Target surviving this.
The home is in effect a workplace would this have any consideration in this ruling.Target may be a little low brow, but it has awoken us to the unbelievable actions of some businesses.
@ Brian: Thanks – I’m glad we’re on the same page about Target then. I took your advice and read the other piece you wrote about Target (the episode of the randy carpet layer). That piece was about ratings; this piece was about privacy.
So I haven’t changed my mind. You say you take no position in your post and merely outline the issues, but you say: “Your initial response to this might well be the same as mine: the guy should be pleased his outfit did so well; what’s he moaning about?”. As I said before, my initial response was not that at all – mine was “good on ya!”. You seem to think that, because in this case the outcome was positive, the subject should be happy – and presumably should have no objections to having been filmed and shown on TV etc. Which leaves “you” in my earlier statement “you media people…”, sorry.
Who are you tempted to respond to with “You idiots…”?
BE: I would have thought that when someone refers to their “initial response” the reasonable presumption would be that on reading further or on reflection, they had come to a different conclusion. You evidently prefer to stick to your view that I disapproved of The BSA’s finding, though nowhere is that stated or even implied in the post. I merely draw attention to the inevitable corollary of that decsiion. I’m not surprised you take exception to being lumped together with ‘idiots’. I object to being categorised as one of ‘you media people’.
There’s a financial side to this as well that I’m surprised has not come up before. The trades people filmed on target provide the shows producers with content. This content is then sold to the network for a profit.
Surely the tradespeople should be required to either be paid a fee in exchange for he rights to their performance or legally wave the right to one.
I know shows like Motorway Patrol and Piha Rescue gain a release from people that appear or pixelate their face. If I was the trades person involved I would be asking for some compensation!
@ Brian: I don’t object to being called an idiot by someone who doesn’t know me. I did not say I take exception to being lumped in with idiots – I was just asking – and now that I know I just ignore it.
I am not saying that you disapprove of the BSA’s findings. I am saying that your initial response to the BSA’s findings is basically that the guy should be happy to be filmed and shown on TV.
OK so there’s three issues here (or were):
1: Whether you agree with the BSA’s findings. This was resolved in your first response to me (you mentioned something about the heading). I am sorry I forgot to acknowledge that.
2: About the quality of the Target programme. This was also resolved: I said “glad we’re on the same page”.
3: “You media people”. Now you are saying “I would have thought that when someone refers to their ‘initial response’ the reasonable presumption would be that on reading further or on reflection, they had come to a different conclusion.” Who’s ‘intial response’ are you talking about now? Two possibilities:
a.- Are you saying you have come to a diffrerent conclusion? You see, that quote I used came from you. I copied-and-pasted it from your own original post. I put it in quote marks, like this: “Your initial response to this might well be the same as mine: the guy should be pleased his outfit did so well; what’s he moaning about?”. To which I replied in my post above (my ‘initial response’ is still “good on ya”). Anyway, if you *have* come to a different conclusion, I would be very happy to take the “you” out of “you media people”. In fact that whole statement (“When a photographer wants to use a photo he has shot of a model, that model first has to sign a model release contract. And they are both just doing their jobs! But you media people seem to think you have a god given right to interfere in private people’s business.”) would be irrelevant.
b.- I said: “As I said before, my initial response was not that at all – mine was “good on ya!”.” This “initial response” referred to the “initial response” in your sentence that I copied-and-pasted (see above under a.). I should have put it in quote marks for clarity, sorry. Or maybe I could use italics?
I am sorry if all this sounds partonising or pedantic, but I just want to be as clear as possible (I feel I have not been clear enough in my previous posts).
BE: If you say so, Toine.
“But why would an electrician who hadn’t done anything wrong and whose company had come out pretty well, complain to the BSA?”
Because he objects to being snooped on?
I don’t think the case would be any different if it were a private citizen filming in their own home. You have no right to film people without their consent when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There’s no specific public interest in this case that could not be served by means that do no violate this person’s privacy.
I’ve used Target in my classes on numerous occasions as an example of an egregious privacy violator. I think it should be taken off air or change its format. Similarly, annoying middle class people who secretly tape their babysitters ought to be heavily fined.
A TVNZ show The Inspectors was also found against. This was not a hidden camera show but rather the crew followed a health inspector on his rounds. Interesting because it all relates to consent being given, or not.
Here is the link.
Good on the court.
As a tradesman, I do not want to end up on National TV scratching my arse or picking my nose.
How about evening it up with a show on dodgy and dishonest tradesmens customers, which I can assure you, greatly outnumber dodgy tradesmen.
Imagine the outcry if you filmed them pulling bits off things to pretend the job is bad, to avoid paying, announcing after the job is done they have no money to pay you and never did have or taking you to court for damage done by their home handywork you have never been anywhere near.
Target is a disgusting invasion of privacy.
Don’t praise The Broadcasting Standards Authority too much, all they where is a middle man that claims to solve issues. Why do you even exist at all, if you don’t even solve my issue?
You think by publishing an article resolves my issue, as if. I didn’t get an apology or anything out of Target.
My complaint was brought on by several factors,
One, Being I never in my life wanted to be aired In a TV show.
2. I was wrongfully put in this situation, with no consent given by me to air my face.
3. They actually modified the footage of me and the boss, making me look like the idiot… The boss got the wrong Gib fixers. So they where never going to do up tight in the first place, this explains why the presenter is one minute saying I did them up too tight, But it’s still wobbly on the wall!! “How in the world does that make sense?”
4. I did not snap the screw off in the wall; however the boss pushed one of the whole gib fixers into the wall. (I somehow got coped with all the blame, and they didn’t show the boss doing that)
With a breach of privacy all ready done by Target, I Did not want to approach them about the false content they made up. I wish now I did. (You can only go to the BSA about breach of privacy)
Sounds like a case for US “Fee for success” lawyers.
I actually don’t see how you got this out of it!!
“If I read this judgement correctly then anyone secretly filmed in the ‘Target house’ can expect to have a complaint of breach of privacy upheld by the BSA, whether they were doing anything wrong or not, whether their faces were seen or not and even whether the item was broadcast or not. The breach of privacy arose from filming someone in a location where they had ‘an interest in seclusion’, ‘an expectation of privacy’. Questions of the public interest don’t even come into it.” It actually still seems that target will just continue to tiptoe around this issue, as they were, but probably just a bit more careful at the content, and showing faces and company names etc.