Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item during a Newstalk ZB news bulletin featured an interview with Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder. The newsreader introduced the item by saying, ‘Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder believes their loss to the Highlanders is the kick up the backside they need. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘kick up the backside’ was rude, alluded to indecent assault and sexual abuse, and offended ‘community standards’. A ‘kick up the backside’ is a common, colloquial expression in New Zealand, meaning an unwelcome event or action that unexpectedly motivates or inspires. The expression would be well-known to listeners, who would not associate it with indecent or sexual assault. Therefore its use in this context did not threaten standards of good taste and decency....

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 Radio Sport host, Martin Devlin, complained on air that he had been treated like a schoolboy by the manager of the New Zealand Cricket Team, John Graham. Mr Mee complained to The Radio Network of New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that a subsequent caller, commenting on Mr Devlin’s treatment by Mr Graham, was dealt with in an "abusive and contemptuous" way by Mr Devlin. The exchange was broadcast on Radio Sport on 23 August 1999, at about 9. 15am. TRN responded to Mr Mee’s complaint that the caller was a regular who would have been aware that he was entering a "robust arena" in calling the station’s talkback show. It also suggested that the caller might have incited Mr Devlin’s "strong" response. It declined to uphold Mr Mee’s complaint. Dissatisfied with TRN’s decision, Mr Mee referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During his talkback show, host Leighton Smith in a conversation with a caller about the impact of cultural and religious beliefs on others, asked, ‘How do you think the Muslims will fit into that? ’ He then repeated the question as, ‘How do you think the beheaders will fit into that? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promoted anti-Islamic sentiment and was extremely offensive. While the comment was objectionable, it was relatively brief and not repeated, and did not reach the high threshold necessary to constitute hate speech or encourage discrimination or denigration. Mr Smith was also apparently questioned about the comment by the programme producer and he attempted to explain what he meant....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints that comments by Leighton Smith about climate change issues were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. Mr Smith provided his views in response to a news item, saying that climate change was not predominantly man made and was instead due to ‘normal variability’. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the requirements of the accuracy standard do not apply to statements of analysis, comment or opinion. In this case, the Authority considered it was clear that Mr Smith’s statements amounted to statements of opinion in a talkback context....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Complaint received by broadcaster 21 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster declined to consider as a formal complaint – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaintFindingsSection 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act states that complaints must be “lodged in writing with the broadcaster” within 20 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster was not obliged to consider complaint – Authority has no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Nilanka Fonseka wrote a letter of complaint to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) about comments broadcast on 6 February 2006 on ZM radio (90. 9FM). [2] The complaint was received by TRN on 7 March 2006. TRN declined to accept his complaint as a formal complaint, as it had arrived “outside the 20 days allowed since the broadcast to qualify as a formal complaint”....

Summary In the context of a discussion about the re-appointment of the All Black coach, the host of the breakfast show on Radio Sport broadcast by TRN on 15 September 1998 reported that the previous evening he had overheard John Hart in conversation with his wife in a public place saying something like "I thought Ross was supposed to be on my side". Mr Black complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unethical to report a private conversation, and a breach of Mr Hart’s privacy. TRN responded by noting that the host just happened to be in Mr Hart’s vicinity and overheard the conversation. It emphasised that the host would in no circumstances have engaged in any unethical action to Mr Hart’s detriment....

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Breakfast Show – host joked “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour used to convey important message about men’s health to target audience – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki between 6am and 9am on Tuesday 14 June 2011, one of the hosts Dean stated, “Alright, so the call is going to go out this morning for a doctor for Men’s Health Week”, and his co-host Nick joked, “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse?...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a station identity promo for Newstalk ZB news, which listed the names of the station’s flagship presenters followed by the tagline, ‘all the names you can trust’, breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the accuracy standard did not apply, as this was clearly a piece of station branding or marketing (rather than a news, current affairs or factual programme) and the tagline was clearly promotional, rather than making a statement of fact. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion of South Africa & New Zealand one day cricket match – callers’ questions about match-fixing and bonus point – host terminated one call apparently from an Asian with reference to match-fixing in the sub-continent – another call terminated with sarcasm – unfair – racist FindingsPrinciple 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7 – opinion not racial slur – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The result of the previous evening’s one day cricket match between New Zealand and South Africa was one of the topics on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 2 February 2002 hosted by Doug Golightly. One caller questioned whether the result was fixed, and another asked whether South Africa had earned a bonus point....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Kerre McIvor & Mark Dye Afternoons, the hosts had a conversation about tipping in the United States. They discussed a story told by a talkback caller, who said that a church published a Bible pamphlet to be used instead of a monetary tip. One host, who appeared to be reading from the pamphlet, said, ‘Some things are better than money, like your eternal salvation that was bought and paid for by Jesus,’ to which the other host responded by making a vomiting sound. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the vomiting sound made by the host was offensive to Christians and all those who hold religious beliefs. The Authority acknowledged that the host’s reaction would have caused offence to some listeners....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Hauraki Breakfast, hosts Jeremy Wells and Matt Heath discussed smoking marijuana, in relation to several National Party MPs who had recently publicly stated they had never tried it. The hosts took calls from listeners who had also never tried marijuana and asked them why they had never tried it. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast promoted and encouraged the use of marijuana. The Authority found the broadcast amounted to a comedic discussion of smoking marijuana that did not go beyond established audience expectations of Radio Hauraki, Hauraki Breakfast or the hosts. The Authority noted that humour and satire are important aspects of free speech, and found that on this occasion, there was insufficient risk of harm to justify limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about the use of the word ‘gypped’ during a segment of Sarah, Sam and Toni has not been upheld. The Authority found the host’s use of this word on this occasion did not carry any malicious intent and therefore did not reach the threshold required to be considered a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. While the Authority did not uphold the complaint, they acknowledged that the casual use of this term and its variants may cause offence to some members of the public and noted care is required when using expressions relating to sections of the community....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a replay of a broadcast of Brad and Laura on The Hits breached the promotion of illegal or serious antisocial behaviour standard by presenting the action of running over ‘carpark savers’ as humorous. The show discussed the issue of people standing in carparks to save them for other people, and featured interaction with listeners in response to this, which included the suggestion of running over people saving carparks. Overall the Authority did not consider the likely impact of this programme would be to encourage the audience to actually run over ‘carpark savers. ’ The audience would have understood the hosts’ reaction of giving a caller who made this suggestion a prize was merely an appreciative response to their joke, which was clearly hyperbole and intended to be humorous. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment by Mike Hosking referring to unvaccinated New Zealanders as ‘idiots’. The comment was unlikely to cause widespread offence and was a legitimate expression of opinion. Accordingly, it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

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....