Search Rapua

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion about New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup – caller suggested host was overly critical of the team – host’s response – abusive – unfair – sexist FindingsPrinciple 1 – subsumed Principle 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7, Guideline 7a – threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup was discussed on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 15 March 2003 hosted by Doug Golightly. One woman caller suggested to the host that he was overly critical of the team. The host advised the caller to return to domestic duties....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a talkback segment on Sportstalk, the host Mark Watson criticised northern hemisphere sports media and the British and Irish Lions rugby team. The host made provocative statements about the Lions team who were at that time touring New Zealand, saying, among other things, ‘hopefully you get smashed’. The host then engaged in a heated discussion with a talkback caller about northern hemisphere rugby and rugby media. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host’s comments undermined broadcasting standards. The comments made, while critical and provocative, did not exceed audience expectations within the robust and opinionated environment of talkback radio, and particularly on Radio Sport. The Authority noted that the free and frank expression of opinions is an important aspect of the right to freedom of expression, and is valued in our society....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on The Leighton Smith Show, host Leighton Smith quoted a listener’s views on news sources such as CNN, the BBC and Newshub. Mr Smith went on to say that consumers of similar sources lived in ‘blissful ignorance’ because they did not listen to the views of ‘the other side’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Smith’s comments were biased and dismissive towards reputable news sources. The Authority noted that, while talkback radio is not immune to broadcasting standards, the balance and accuracy standards in particular apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the accuracy standard does not apply to statements clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Thomas the Tanked Engine – use of the word “faggot” – allegedly in breach of social responsibility Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – threshold for denigration not met – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a segment called Thomas the Tanked Engine, broadcast on Radio Hauraki’s Breakfast Show on 29 October 2007, the word “faggot” was used by the character Thomas. The following exchange took place between the characters Thomas and Percy: Thomas: Look Percy, there are the two key members of “King”. Percy: Queen. Thomas: Faggot. Percy: No Thomas, they’re (indistinct), oh never mind. . . Complaint [2] Michael Botur made a formal complaint to The Radio Network (TRN), the broadcaster, alleging that the character’s use of the word “faggot” was in breach of social responsibility standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Following the broadcast of a Labour campaign advertisement on Radio Sport Weekender, presenter Mark Watson commented: ‘I like Jacinda Ardern’s optimism; I just want to know how you pay for it all. That’s all I want to know… if it’s that easy, I think everybody would have done it by now. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment amounted to alleged political editorialising, which was unacceptable and unprofessional. While listeners might not have expected the host to comment on political issues during a sports programme, this was an opinion open to the host to express, provided broadcasting standards were maintained....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport – discussion about oil prices – guest referred to “thieving Arab bastards” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated ArabsFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (denigration) – did not amount to blackening or hate speech – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a light-hearted exchange about what he regarded as the exorbitant cost of filling the petrol tank in his car, a guest on Radio Sport used the phrase “thieving Arab bastards”. The comment was broadcast at about 8. 30am on 31 March 2006. Complaint [2] Jack Sturt complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the phrase was inexcusable....

A segment on Simon Barnett & James Daniels Afternoons discussed that day’s COVID-19 media conference announcing the likely use of vaccination certificates. The complainant stated the segment breached the accuracy standard as the interviewee indicated there was no detail provided regarding when the certificates would be used, despite the Government providing an indicative date of ‘November’ in the earlier conference. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the segment was materially accurate. In any event, an interview in a later programme on the channel was sufficient to clarify and correct any misleading impression which may have been created. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On two occasions, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children could be listening. The comments were consistent with the expectations of Radio Hauraki’s adult target audience, and would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners. Both items were light-hearted and intended to be humorous rather than offensive. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In two separate items, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The first item was broadcast on 5 March 2014 at 7. 34am and the second item was broadcast on 27 March 2014 at 7. 50am....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Radio Sport host commented to the programme producer, ‘I wonder when Team New Zealand are going to tell us all that one of their chief designers quit a couple of weeks ago. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate because no designer had resigned. Listeners would have interpreted the comments as speculation or gossip, rather than confirmed fact. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During The Devlin Radio Show on Radio Sport, the host commented to the programme producer, ‘I wonder when Team New Zealand are going to tell us all that one of their chief designers quit a couple of weeks ago. ’ The programme was broadcast on 30 June 2014....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – segment was an attempt at humour and satire – the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – broadcast would not have offended most listeners in context, was not socially irresponsible, and did not reach high threshold required for encouraging denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

A complaint that a radio host asking a caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ breached the discrimination and denigration standard has not been upheld. A broadcast of Afternoons with Andrew Dickens featured a discussion between Mr Dickens and a caller about Māori sovereignty, the Treaty of Waitangi and racism. During the discussion Mr Dickens asked the caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ The Authority found that while the comment was patronising, misinformed and likely to offend some listeners, it did not contain the level of condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and therefore any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about an item on Hauraki Drive with Thane Kirby, which alleged that Mr Kirby made a comment suggesting COVID-19 contact-tracing information could be used to contact attractive women. There was an issue with identifying the correct time of broadcast, and the broadcast complained about was not retained by the broadcaster, despite the complainant signaling she would be taking the matter further with the Authority. The Authority also noted the broadcaster should have responded early to the complainant so that she had an opportunity to resubmit her complaint within the required timeframe. Without being able to listen to the actual words used in the broadcast, the tone, and the surrounding context, the Authority concluded it must decline to determine the complaint, which it recognized was a very unsatisfactory outcome....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by Jack Tame during his morning show including the statement ‘Māori don’t just deserve special treatment, but are contractually guaranteed a form of special treatment under the Treaty’. The Authority found, in context, the comment amounted to analysis to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The comment was not the focus of the discussion, and an opinion-based segment such as this is not required to provide alternate perspectives under the balance standard. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a broadcast in which two co-hosts made fun of the third for giving his pet pig a name shared by ‘one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party’, and the three of them joked about distinguishing names associated with Hitler and the Nazis by spelling them differently. The Authority noted the comments may be considered distasteful, in that they trivialised the notoriety of Hitler and the Nazis, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a discussion on Callum & P breached the privacy of a person interviewed on-air by disclosing their COVID-19 vaccination status. The Authority found the interviewee was a willing participant in the disclosure of her vaccination status. On this basis the broadcast did not breach the privacy standard. Not Upheld: Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment during Days with Lorna Subrtizky on Coast FM discussing Sylvester Stallone’s recent divorce. As part of the segment, the host joked, ‘When he was interviewed about it, Sly Stallone had this to say…’ and played a clip of Stallone garbling unintelligibly, with only the word ‘Rocky’ able to be made out. The complainant considered this to be a cruel and insensitive joke which made fun of Stallone’s (and by implication, others’) disability affecting his speech, in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the joke was directed only at Stallone as an individual, and did not extend to a section of the community as required under the standard. In any event, the broadcast would not have reached the threshold required for finding a breach.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....

The Authority found it was appropriate to decline to determine a complaint about the mispronunciation of Māori place name ‘Matamata’ during a radio item on Newstalk ZB. While it recognised the importance of the proper pronunciation and use of te reo as an official New Zealand language, it noted concerns about unintentional mispronunciation cannot be properly addressed under the broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached Mrs Stokes’ privacy. Mrs Stokes had a reasonable expectation that, in the circumstances, her phone call and the conversation would remain private. The recording and broadcast of her conversation, in circumstances where she had expressly asked for privacy was objectionable and would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the complainant’s position....