Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Jay-Jay, Mike & Dom show one of the hosts commented that 'Louise Nicholas is the woman who was raped by a pack of cops in Rotorua'. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that this statement was inaccurate, because it did not form part of a news, current affairs or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During the Jay-Jay, Mike & Dom show one of the hosts commented on TVNZ's apology for the placement of a condom commercial, saying: TVNZ has apologised for an awkwardly placed condom ad. . . that features a woman talking about her sexual enjoyment. It was played during the Louise Nicholas movie Consent on Sunday night. Now, Louise Nicholas is the woman who was raped by a pack of cops in Rotorua. . ....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by Duncan Garner and Judith Collins on The AM Show breached the balance and law and order standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Authority found that the comments identified did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, so the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not breach the law and order standard as it did not contain any content which would have encouraged audiences to break the law. Not Upheld: Balance, Law and Order...

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. ]During Talk with Sean Plunket, the CEO of the National Foundation for the Deaf called in to discuss captioning on television, and especially the perceived problem of the lack of captioning of broadcasts of the 2015 Rugby World Cup. Mr Plunket argued, ‘You can actually watch the rugby with the sound off, you can see – they’ve got big numbers on their backs – you can see what’s happening’ and asked, ‘Really is this such a problem? ’ After further discussion, he stated, ‘You do have a hearing problem because you’re not actually engaging in a conversation’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Plunket’s comments amounted to bullying and denigrated the deaf community....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Afternoons with Wendyl Nissen with a journalist, about an article she had written regarding the upcoming perjury trial of the secret witnesses who testified in David Tamihere’s murder trial. During the interview the journalist discussed the discovery of one victim’s body, saying, ‘you think of a body turning up… it’s really… bones. The trampers who found [the] body actually stepped on it before they saw it. ’ Ms Nissen replied: ‘So there was a crunch’, adding, ‘– sorry to be disgusting’. A complaint was made that this comment was ‘disgusting, disrespectful’ and ‘in poor taste’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Paul Henry on Radio Live the presenters said ‘bloody’ and ‘bugger’ several times. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this language was unacceptable. These terms constituted low-level coarse language which would not have offended a significant number of listeners in the context of the broadcast. The language was within audience expectations of the presenters, the programme and the radio station. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During Paul Henry on Radio Live the presenters said ‘bloody’ and ‘bugger’ several times. [2] Dr John Tanner complained that this language was unacceptable. [3] As Dr Tanner did not nominate a specific standard in his complaint, MediaWorks assessed the complaint under what it considered to be the most relevant standard....

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!...

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....

A complaint that a segment on The Breakfast Club, on More FM, where the hosts made jokes and puns about a woman who died after being pecked by a rooster, breached the good taste and decency standard has not been upheld. The Authority found that, while the comments were insensitive and had the potential to cause offence to family of the deceased, the programme as a whole did not reach the threshold required to justify a restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority found that, considering the context of the item (including the target audience of More FM and the audience expectations surrounding The Breakfast Club and its hosts) and the tone of the item, the item did not undermine widely shared community standards and was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress. Not upheld: Good taste and decency...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Rock Morning Rumble included a stunt featuring the Prime Minister, in which he was invited to enter a cage installed in the studio and ‘pick up the soap’. Upon the Prime Minister doing so, the host quoted a recognised rape scene from the film Deliverance, saying, ‘You’ve got a pretty little mouth Prime Minister’. The Authority upheld a complaint that the stunt amounted to a deliberate reference to prison rape that had the effect of trivialising sexual violence and specifically prison rape. While the segment was allegedly intended to be humorous, which is an important aspect of the exercise of free speech, the stunt overstepped the boundaries of legitimate humour and was offensive....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a spoof of OMC hit song ‘How Bizarre’, in which the singer mimicked the original artist’s accent, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the accent used was an attempt to imitate the distinctive singing voice of Mr Fuemana and sound of ‘How Bizarre’, in the spirit of spoofing the song itself, rather than an attempt to imitate a specifically Māori or Pacific Island English accent. It did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Māori or Pacific Islanders. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The song 'Smile' by Lily Allen was broadcast during MORE FM Breakfast with Si and Gary. The song included one muted use of the word 'fucking'. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached standards of good taste and decency as the word 'fucking' was not clearly audible and occurred only once in the song. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] The song 'Smile' by Lily Allen was broadcast during MORE FM Breakfast with Si and Gary. The opening lyrics of the song included one instance of the word 'fucking', which was partly muted. [2] Christine McCabe complained that the word 'fucking' was 'quite audible'. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the good taste and decency standard of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an election advertisement for the National Party, John Key referred to ‘Labour, The Greens and Dotcom’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to ‘Dotcom’ was misleading because there was no ‘Dotcom Party’. The advertisement did not explicitly refer to any ‘Dotcom Party’, Kim Dotcom has been a prominent figure in the election, and most listeners would have understood it to be a reference to the Internet Party, and that political party advertising is broadcast in the context of a robust political arena in the lead-up to a general election. Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy)Introduction[1] An advertisement for the National Party was broadcast on Radio Live on 15 September 2014. The advertisement stated: What have we learnt in this election?...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a reference to ‘the future King of England’ during a news segment was inaccurate. The complainant has previously referred a number of complaints about similar issues to the Authority, which were either not upheld, with comprehensive reasons given for the Authority’s decision, or which the Authority declined to determine. The complainant’s appeal of a previous decision to the High Court on a similar issue was also dismissed. The Authority therefore declined to determine the complaint under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, on the grounds that it was trivial and vexatious. Declined to Determine: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on The Morning Rumble featuring ‘songs that I can guarantee won’t be played’ at Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. One of the songs was ‘Another One Bites the Dust’ by Queen, which the complainant considered was in bad taste. The Authority found the segment was within audience expectations of the radio station and the programme, and sufficiently signposted to allow listeners an opportunity to exercise choice and control. Therefore it was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or otherwise undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme’s statement “only a party vote for National can change the government’” was misleading as ‘voting for National could change the government but it’s not the only way to change the government. ’ The Authority considered listeners would have understood the statement to be advocacy or opinion rather than fact, encouraging the public to vote for National, and that there are a number of other parties that could be voted for. Not Upheld: E2: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge Afternoons with Guy, Sharyn and Clint the hosts ran a segment called ‘Shaz Dog’s Love Shack’, where listeners could text and call in to ask for advice on love and relationships. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that ‘a discussion of sexual positions’ breached standards. The segment was consistent with the style of content and humour regularly broadcast on The Edge, and was unlikely to surprise or offend the target audience of 15- to 39-year-olds. Most of the content was in the nature of sexual innuendo and would have gone over the heads of younger listeners....

A segment on Magic Afternoons with Leah Panapa and Danny Watson on 1 July 2021 touched on the topic of Jewish people in Hollywood and included the comment ‘Hollywood was run by Jewish people. ’ The broadcaster conceded the comments made by the hosts ‘reflected a trope evoking prejudicial ideas’ and upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the comments had the potential to affirm, further embed and spread negative stereotypes, but in the circumstances considered the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to address the breach. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration (Action Taken)...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint regarding a comment made by radio host Wendyl Nissen about US President Donald Trump has not been upheld. During the segment, which reviewed the book, ‘The President is Missing’, Ms Nissen commented, ‘Wouldn’t that be great if [US President Donald] Trump just went missing? Like we just never heard from him again because someone killed him and put him at the bottom of the ocean…? ’ The Authority found the comment did not breach broadcasting standards. This was a flippant comment that was intended to be humorous and was in line with audience expectations for the programme, particularly considering the robust talkback radio environment. The Authority emphasised that humour is an important aspect of freedom of expression and found that limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified....