Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

ComplaintChannel Z – "motherfucker" – "fucking cunt" – offensive language FindingsPrinciple 1 – breach of current norms of good taste and decency – uphold OrderCosts of $750 to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary I B Anderson complained to Channel Z, the broadcaster, about the expressions "motherfucker" and "fucking cunt" being broadcast on 30 May 2001 just before 4. 30pm. When the broadcaster did not respond within the statutory 20 working days, Mr Anderson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The broadcaster then responded that Channel Z was a niche radio station with an alternative format, and that its audience had a liberal view of language. The broadcaster agreed that the expressions were offensive and would not usually be broadcast....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host compared the All Whites to disabled athletes and their win of supreme Halberg trophy to awarding disabled sports award – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – talkback radio a robust environment – host’s comments amounted to opinion – discussed legitimate issue – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of disabled athletes or people with disabilities – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live – (1) talkback host on 11 October criticised New Zealand Aids Foundation for what he regarded as its promotion of the gay lifestyle – allegedly denigratory, unbalanced and unfair(2) talkback host on 12 October expressed dislike for most gay men – allegedly denigratory, unbalanced and unfairFindings (both 11 and 12 October broadcasts) Principle 4 (balance) – exchanges did not amount to discussions about a controversial of public importance – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – no obligation to give the NZAF a right of reply taking into account brevity of throw-away comments made by talkback host – not upheldPrinciple 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – threshold not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live – reference to the Arabian Gulf in a news report – allegedly inaccurateFindings Principle 6 (accuracy) – use of the term Arabian Gulf inaccurate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] During a news item broadcast on Radio Live on 9 April 2007, a reporter used the term “Arabian Gulf” when reporting that a British service woman had been freed after being held hostage for 13 days in Iran. Complaint[2] Babak Mahdavi complained to CanWest RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the body of water which separates the Iranian Plateau from the Arabian Peninsula was officially named the “Persian Gulf”, and therefore it was inaccurate to refer to it as the Arabian Gulf....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Solid Gold FM – comment by radio announcer that Ellen DeGeneres had been chosen as new American Idol judge making her “the second most powerful lesbian on the planet – the first of course being Chris Carter” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment was clearly intended to be a joke – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – broadcast did not contain any material or language that strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment was a joke and would not have been interpreted as a statement of fact – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment was a joke…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fletch and Vaughan Show – hosts discussed competition – asked winning team what they were going to draw on the faces of the losing team and one of the winners stated “Well on the forehead ‘Vote Team Two’ and on the side of the face a nice little penis just going into the mouth” – broadcaster upheld complaint under good taste and decency – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – action taken by broadcaster adequate considering the nature of the breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Fletch and Vaughan Show, broadcast on The Edge at 3pm on Thursday 9 December 2010, the hosts discussed a competition being run by the radio station....

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....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Complaints about two broadcasts on Radio Pacific (Mark Bennett talkback) – critical comments by host about Premier House function for actor Sir Ian McKellen – both broadcasts allegedly discriminatory – second broadcast allegedly unbalancedFindings Principle 7, Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments did not encourage discrimination against homosexuals – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in second broadcast – not upheld Broadcasting Act, s. 5(a) – proper procedure for dealing with complaints not followedThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 2 December 2003 at about 3. 30pm, Radio Pacific talkback host Mark Bennett spoke critically about a reception for actor Sir Ian McKellen, which had been held at Premier House....

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.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host commented that Māori Television had complained to the BSA about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast – referred to Māori Television as “racist, separatist, and apartheid” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly opinion – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 16 June 2006 on Radio Pacific at approximately 6. 10am, the host John Banks commented that Māori Television had complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike & Dom Show – contained discussion about a controversial tweet by one of the hosts in which he said, “Girls rapping....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host stated that the BSA had not upheld a complaint from Māori Television about his comments criticising the channel – stated that Māori Television was “apartheid” and “racist” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that BSA had not upheld the complaint when it had not yet considered the complaint – inaccurate to refer to Māori Television as Te Karere – upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 25 July 2006 at approximately 7....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – (1) racist remarks – offensive language; (2) denigrated Maori FindingsNo tape provided – unable to determine complaint on merits Principle 8 – relevantOrderCosts of $250 to the complainant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Talkback host John Banks was reported to have made critical references to the contribution by Maori to the millennium celebrations in New Zealand in a programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 17 January 2000 between 8. 15–8. 50am. Hohepa Campbell complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that the host’s comments were offensive and anti-Maori and incited racial disharmony. As he did not receive a response from The RadioWorks within the statutory time frame, he referred the matter to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintTalkback – Radio Pacific – host rude to callers FindingsPrinciple 1 – no tape – reported remarks not exceptional in talkback context – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Talkback discussion about equestrian Mark Todd’s alleged cocaine use was broadcast on Radio Pacific on 6 July 2000 between 7. 00–8. 00am. The host supported Mr Todd. Alex Watson complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the host’s conduct had been objectionable. He cited some examples of callers being subjected to what he termed abusive treatment after expressing their views, and noted that although some callers had tried to remonstrate with the host, they had been cut off before they could speak. In his view, this was not part of free speech talkback, and did nothing for the reputation of the station....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – anonymous caller revealed that named person had visited a medical clinic – disclosed confidential medical details – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2,067 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On the afternoon of Monday 9 October 2006, the hosts on The Edge radio station stated that they had “a bit of inside goss” from an anonymous caller who had previously worked at a medical centre for two weeks. The hosts asked “are you breaking patient confidentiality here or something? ” to which the caller laughed....