Search Rapua

The Authority has upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks in response to a breach of the alcohol standard during The Morning Rumble was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the item, which focussed on an interviewee’s ability to ‘down’ alcohol at a rapid rate, amounted to alcohol promotion that was socially irresponsible. While the broadcaster had apologised to the complainant, and communicated the importance of the alcohol standard internally to content directors of The Rock FM, the Authority found that this was insufficient to remedy the harm caused by the broadcast. Upheld: Alcohol (action taken) Orders: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $1,000 costs to the Crown...

While filling in on Magic Talk’s Magic Mornings, John Banks discussed former CEO Grainne Moss’s departure from Oranga Tamariki. One talkback caller made comments which were endorsed by Mr Banks. MediaWorks found these were denigrating towards Māori and breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks did not sufficiently remedy the harm caused by the breaches. It found the comments were foreseeable in the broadcast environment MediaWorks had created. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Discrimination and Denigration (Action Taken) Orders: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $3,000 costs to the Crown...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Morning Talk with Mark Sainsbury a caller to the programme discussed her experience with divorce legal proceedings in the Family Court and subsequent appeals. A complaint was made that, by allowing the caller to disclose details of the proceedings, the broadcaster breached the law and order standard. The Authority expressed serious concerns with the way in which the call was allowed to progress, as private information was disclosed by the caller which had been suppressed in the Family Court. The Authority found the broadcaster needs to be more alert to the issues surrounding Family Court matters and similar proceedings as issues of contempt, as well as fairness and privacy, may arise....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the good taste and decency and other standards about comments on Magic Talk regarding the LynnMall terror incident. Host Stephen McIvor responded “well spoken” to a caller who praised police for their actions (killing the suspect) which saved the country money. While insensitive, the comments did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order...

A complaint that Malcolm Brenner was treated unfairly when interviewed for a segment on Dom, Meg and Randell about his previous sexual relationship with a dolphin has been upheld. MediaWorks interviewed Mr Brenner about his relationship with a dolphin but ultimately decided not to broadcast the interview in full. They did however broadcast a small segment of the interview in which one of the hosts called Mr Brenner ‘sick’ and stormed out of the interview. The Authority found that Mr Brenner was treated unfairly and was not adequately informed about the nature of his participation in the broadcast. In particular, he was misled into thinking a four minute version of the interview would be broadcast (rather than only the brief segment including the host’s reaction to him), when the final broadcast had already occurred....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging a broadcast of the song ‘The Next Episode’ by Dr Dre (featuring Snoop Dogg and Nate Dogg) contained swearing – specifically, the ‘f word’. Since the edited version of the song broadcast did not contain the alleged language, the Authority considered, in all the circumstances, the complaint should not be determined. Declined to Determine (s 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview between Magic Talk host Ryan Bridges and World Health Organisation Special Envoy Dr David Nabarro. The complainant argued the interview contained inaccurate information about Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 and mask wearing, and inaccurately suggested Dr Nabarro advocated New Zealand adopt Sweden’s approach. The Authority found the relevant statements were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. It also concluded they were not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of the interview. The standards of good taste and decency, balance and fairness either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge’s Smash! 20 countdown show, a caller successfully answered a series of questions based on the songs in the countdown and won a prize. While taking the caller’s personal details, the announcer left the phone channel in ‘on-air’ mode and inadvertently broadcast the caller’s full name, address, school, date of birth and mobile number. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the caller’s privacy. The caller was clearly identifiable and disclosed a high level of personal detail on air, over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Authority acknowledged the caller’s disclosure was the result of an unfortunate technical error on the announcer’s part, and that the broadcaster took immediate actions to respond to the breach. The Authority did not make any order in these circumstances. Upheld: PrivacyNo OrderIntroduction[1] During The Edge’s Smash!...

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one caller expressed views opposing drilling including the fact drilling resources were sent to China who manufactured it into ‘crap’. Later in the programme, the host sarcastically referred back to the caller’s comments, referring to the ‘Damn Chinese’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were offensive and disrespected Chinese people. The host was being sarcastic, and was actually defending China, not being derogatory. In any case the comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Chinese people. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Sean Plunket, one topic of discussion was proposed offshore drilling in Taranaki....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Talkback radio host Sean Plunket reacted to author Eleanor Catton's comments at a literary festival in India, which were negative about the New Zealand government. He was highly critical of Ms Catton, saying that she was a 'traitor' and an 'ungrateful hua' among other things. The Authority did not uphold complaints that Mr Plunket's comments breached broadcasting standards. The nature of Ms Catton's remarks was such that it was reasonable for them to attract some strong views in response. The host's comments were within the bounds of audience expectations of talkback radio and within the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on The AM Show, in which a booth designed to enable doctors to perform discrete testicle examinations was likened to a ‘confession booth’, breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority found that, in the context of the segment, the comparison was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. It also did not reach the level of malice or nastiness necessary to denigrate a section of the community. The public health message in the broadcast was an important one and overall the Authority found that any potential for harm did not justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, the host Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller, the complainant, who went by the name of ‘Alex’. He said ‘back in 17-something… I’d meet him on the beach as the sun came up and I’d potentially kill him or let him kill me in a duel’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host had made a ‘veiled death threat’ against the complainant. It was clear the host was not making a serious death threat, but was using provocative, metaphorical language to express his strong views about the complainant. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller who went by the name of ‘Alex’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the show’s hosts asked callers to submit a ‘corny joke’. A caller submitted the following joke: ‘What’s the hardest part about cooking a vegetable? Trying to fit the wheelchair in the pot. ’ Before the caller delivered the punchline, one of the hosts (who believed he knew the joke), asked his co-hosts to switch off their microphones so they could discuss it. The hosts also spoke to their producer, asking whether it was appropriate to air the punchline to the joke. After some deliberation, they decided to allow the joke to be broadcast. The hosts reacted to the punchline by saying, ‘No! No! That’s a terrible joke! ’ and ‘That’s not a joke! ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment was in poor taste and discriminatory....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that ACT leader David Seymour MP was bullied and treated unfairly on Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket. Mr Seymour called the show to present his perspective on comments made by Mr Plunket moments earlier about Mr Seymour’s motivation for sponsoring the End of Life Choice Bill. The Authority found that, while Mr Plunket’s interviewing style was robust and challenging, Mr Seymour was not treated unfairly given the nature of the programme, the fact that Mr Seymour initiated the conversation and expressed his views, and Mr Seymour’s position and his experience with the media. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not breach the balance standard as it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, which is required for the balance standard to apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Dom, Meg and Randell breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that, while comments made on the show may have been distasteful to some, the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression includes the right to broadcast such material provided this does not cause undue harm. The Authority found that, given the well-established nature of the programme, the station and their target audience, listeners and particularly those with children in their care had sufficient information to make an informed decision about what they listened to. The Authority noted that the standards do not prohibit inexplicit sexual references or sexual innuendo during children’s normally accepted listening times, and it was likely that many of the references during this segment would have gone over the heads of child listeners....

Two complaints about Sean Plunket’s interview of Te Whānau ā Apanui spokesperson Louis Rapihana were upheld under the discrimination and denigration standard. The interview was about the legal basis for iwi roadblocks in the eastern Bay of Plenty under COVID-19 Alert Level 4 and what the iwi intended to do if anyone refused to comply with the travel permit requirement established under Alert Level 3. The Authority1 found Mr Plunket’s approach during the interview and comments made on-air afterwards had the effect of amplifying negative stereotypes about Māori and the potential to cause widespread harm. Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration Orders: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $3,000 costs to the Crown...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the host’s language and approach during an interview broadcast on Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket. Mr Plunket interviewed the Chief Executive of Universities New Zealand about the charging of holding fees for accommodation at university halls of residence during the COVID-19 lockdown period. During the interview Mr Plunket appeared increasingly frustrated and hung up on the interviewee after using the phrase, ‘Jesus Christ’. Noting it has previously determined that the use of variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations or expressions of frustration or surprise did not threaten community standards, the Authority did not find any breach of the good taste and decency standard in this case....

In an episode of The Sean Plunket Working Group, one of the presenters commented ‘fuck this is good radio’ before the commercial break. A complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard was upheld by the broadcaster in the first instance. The Authority1 did not uphold a complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient to remedy the breach, considering the word was not intended to be aired, and the broadcaster upheld the complaint in the first instance, apologising for the mistake. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the references to camps in the broadcast breached the standard as they were made in connection with quarantine management, and did not carry the ‘prison camp’ connotations suggested by the complainant. Not upheld: Good taste and decency (including action taken)...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Thane & Dunc included an interview with a man, X, who had a relationship with a couple (the complainant and Z). During the interview, X described the nature of the relationship. He did not name the couple, referring to them as ‘A’ and ‘B’. A second interview with X was broadcast the following day, during which the hosts told X they had spoken with the couple, who alleged the relationship was abusive. The hosts interrogated X about his behaviour, then demanded X apologise and agree to make no further contact with the couple involved. The Authority upheld a complaint that these broadcasts breached the privacy of the complainant and Z....