Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Truth Radio – host made statements about ChildFund and other child sponsorship organisations – allegedly inaccurateFindings Principle 6 (accuracy) – comments made by host were clearly distinguishable as opinion – accuracy standard did not apply – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] During an item broadcast on Radio Pacific’s Truth Radio programme on 28 March 2007, the host John Banks made some comments regarding child sponsorship organisations. The host had taken a call from a listener who wanted to discuss how the organisation Child Fund New Zealand operated. [2] In relation to ChildFund’s operations the host said that it was a: . . ....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – hosts Pam Corkery and Paul Henry – interview with RNZ Navy Commander about the help being given to a damaged British destroyer – some questions denigrated the British – unbalanced – unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 – interviewee not harassed – no uphold Principle 5 – no one treated unfairly – no uphold Principle 7 – British navy personnel not denigrated – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The assistance being given by the New Zealand Navy to the British destroyer damaged at Lord Howe Island was the subject of an interview broadcast on Radio Pacific at about 8. 20am on 12 July 2002. Hosts Paul Henry and Pam Corkery interviewed Commander John Campbell of the Royal New Zealand Navy....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – breach of privacy – using the airwaves to ridicule and denigrate – unfair – unjust Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) s. 4(1)(c) – privacy – no identification – no uphold (3) Principle 5 – 6 December broadcast – no uphold11 December broadcast (6. 19am) – threatening and intimidatory – uphold11 December broadcast (8. 35am) – suggesting someone has mental problems unfair – uphold12 December broadcast (6. 22am) – no uphold12 December broadcast (6. 54am) – no uphold13 December broadcast – abusive and threatening – uphold20 December broadcast – no uphold7 January broadcast – no uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $250 reimbursement of reasonable legal costs and expenses This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] R K Watkins complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

SummaryA woman caller was advised by a programme host on Radio Pacific to lie to the Accident Compensation Corporation in order to obtain a benefit she was not legally entitled to. The broadcast was at about 10. 00pm on 25 September 1999. V P McGlone complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, about the broadcast. As he did not receive a response from the broadcaster within the statutory 20 working days, Mr McGlone referred the complaint to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. When it responded to the Authority, the broadcaster advised that it had no record of having received the complaint. It advised that it had now upheld the complaint as breaching the requirement to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

ComplaintChannel Z – competition about method of waking up another person – broadcast of male competitor who apparently woke female flatmate with her vibrator – serious criminal offence – offensive behaviourFindingsPrinciple 1 – offensive behaviour described – telephone call recorded – tape reviewed and approved for broadcast – serious error of judgment – upholdOrderBroadcast of approved statement Costs of $2,000 to CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Novel ways of waking a person up were the subject of a competition run on Channel Z. At about 7. 30am on 14 December 2001, Channel Z broadcast a tape of a male competitor waking up a female flatmate in her bedroom by using her vibrator. The broadcast included her invective directed at the competitor when she awoke....

Complaint Radio Pacific – talkback host Mark Bennett – critical of appointment of gay or lesbian police liaison officer – comments said to encourage denigration – inaccurate – unfairFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – odious comment – obsolete stereotypes – comparators used displayed illegal behaviour – high threshold for breach not attainedPrinciple 5 and Guideline 5c – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 6 and Guideline 6c – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary[1] The appointment of a gay and lesbian police liaison officer in Hamilton was the subject of critical comment by the host (Mark Bennett) in a broadcast on Radio Pacific talkback. The comments were broadcast at about 3. 15pm on Wednesday 15 October 2003....

Complaint under sections 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – Mr Laws interviewed the complainant, Karen Batchelor, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association – Mr Laws accused Ms Batchelor of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements – Mr Laws made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Action Taken – Mr Laws took an overly aggressive approach and continuously interrupted the complainant – he made comments that were personally abusive and accused the complainant of lying – overall complainant was treated unfairly – serious breach of fairness standard – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld Standard 5…...

ComplaintThe Rock – 14 complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings in Part I of DecisionFive complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1; three complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1 and Principle 7; one complaint upheld on basis that action taken insufficient Part I interim decision issued – submissions on penalty called for Submissions on PenaltySubstantive points made by The RadioWorks – "relevant submission" under section 10(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 RadioWorks’ SubmissionBroadcasting Standards Authority in breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – insufficient weight given to freedom of expression – Authority’s approach inconsistent with Court of Appeal’s Moonen decision Broadcasting Act – broadcasters responsible for maintaining standards – Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice developed by broadcasters and approved by Authority Bill of Rights – applies to Authority – applies…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – hosts discussed court appearance of radio broadcaster Iain Stables on violence charges – made comments that he was guilty and about his bipolar condition – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Iain Stables was identifiable – programme did not reveal any private facts about him because information about the charges he faced, his previous altercations, and that he had bipolar disorder was already in the public domain – as the broadcast did not disclose any private facts, Iain Stables’ privacy was not breached – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show on The Edge, the hosts discussed charges being faced by radio broadcaster Iain Stables, following an altercation with his ex-girlfriend’s parents....

SummaryThe morning broadcast on The Rock on 14 July 1999, included a "joke" about an Indian superette owner and his Pakistani worker. Mr Yousef complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that the joke was offensive and demeaning. He considered that the joke was both in bad taste and cast a "racial and religious slur". The broadcaster responded that the show was targeted at an audience of males aged between 18-39 years and that its style appealed to large numbers of that group. In the broadcaster’s view, those people were entitled to their own radio station which reflected their values, language and attitudes. The RadioWorks declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, Mr Yousef referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaint....

An Explanatory Note on these decisions can be found after the Appendices. ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women, children, homosexuals, elderly – discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, elderly – broadcaster not mindful of effects of broadcasts on children in the listening audience Findings(1) 17 October broadcast – decline to determine (2) 18 October broadcast – no uphold (3) 19 October broadcast – poem about necrophilia – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 – unsuitable for children – uphold (4) 14 November broadcast - 6. 28am – no uphold (5) 14 November broadcast – 7. 10am – decline to determine (6) 14 November broadcast – 7. 29am – no uphold (7) 14 November broadcast – 8....

ComplaintThe Morning Rumble – toilet humour – offensive behaviour FindingsPrinciple 1 – borderline – majority – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During "The Morning Rumble", the announcers read out an item called "How to Shite Like A Man". It was broadcast on The Rock on the morning of 21 March 2000. Margaret and Hugh Kingsford complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item contained "the most disgusting subject matter [they had] ever heard". The RadioWorks responded that although the item was "somewhat tasteless" and might have been better suited to broadcast at a later time in the day, it was a serious attempt at humour. It added that the content and language used was commonplace among the station’s target audience of 18 to 34 year old males. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live talkback – complainant strongly criticised the host’s approach in an interview with Georgina te Heuheu MP – after some two minutes of uninterrupted comment, the host cut off caller and, while declining to identify her, said that she had her own agendas and that she shouldn’t ring because it wasn’t appropriate for her to call talkback – broadcaster’s approach allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – complainant’s criticism of host and host’s criticism of complainant were not controversial issues of public importance - standard does not apply – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – host’s critical response to experienced caller’s criticisms in robust talkback environment not unfair – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – standard does not apply as exchange was neither news nor current affairs – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Michael Laws Talkback – host spoke about shooting journalists – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – specific nature of the comments had clear potential to distress and offend, whether or not they were intended to be taken literally – upheld by majority Standard 2 (law and order) – host was not seriously encouraging listeners to shoot journalists – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Talkback radio is an important part of broadcasting in New Zealand and has been for a long time. Research which we have conducted has shown that about one-third of the adult population in New Zealand listens to talkback radio from time to time. 1 They do so for different reasons....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – broadcast conversation with listener – hosts had told listener that she was not on air – broadcast her cellphone number – listener complained that broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair – broadcaster upheld the complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – action taken insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken insufficient – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Wednesday 27 August 2008 on The Edge radio station, a telephone conversation between the hosts and a listener was broadcast between 5pm and 6pm. The listener expressed concern that the hosts were making inappropriate remarks about people from other countries, such as India and America....

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – John Banks – critical of Italian team at America’s Cup – greasy Italians – unfair – offensive language – discriminatory – incomplete tape FindingsPrinciple 1 – offensive – uphold Principle 7 – no uphold OrderCosts to the Crown in the sum of $1000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During his talkback programme broadcast between 6. 00–9. 00am on 23 February 2000 on Radio Pacific, host John Banks referred to an incident which had occurred in the America’s Cup race the previous day when the Italian challenger had experienced a number of mishaps and a crew member suffered a head injury. Among other things, he was said to have described the team as "greasy Italians who should be sunk to the bottom of the Waitemata Harbour....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for the television current affairs programme Campbell Livewas broadcast on Radio Live – question as to whether Authority has jurisdiction over promo FindingsAuthority accepts that it has jurisdiction over the promo for Campbell Live broadcast on Radio Live on Tuesday 6 July 2010 This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Background [1] A promo for the television current affairs programme Campbell Live was broadcast on Radio Live at 4. 45pm on Tuesday 6 July 2010. The promo concerned an upcoming item on Campbell Live about the working conditions at an Auckland company called Paper Reclaim Ltd. [2] Paper Reclaim Ltd made a formal complaint to RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster responsible for Radio Live, asserting that the Campbell Live promo breached Standards 5 and 6 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – host repeatedly referred to the Catholic Church as “the church of paedophilia” and commented that “the church is rife with paedophilia among its priests” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, fairness and accuracy Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issues of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – the church’s representative was given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the comments made by the host – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – host did not make any unqualified statements of fact – the accuracy standard did not apply – not upheld  This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...