Search Rapua

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment made on Newstalk ZB referring to the delays that would result while ‘people are in there determining whether they’re transgender or not’ if the census was to be combined with voting. The complainant argued the comment was condescending and derisive of transgender people and that reference to the question on gender identity was irrelevant to the point the host was making. While recognising the comments may be offensive to some people, in the context they did not meet the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Overnight Talk on Newstalk ZB, the complainant had a conversation with the host about greyhound racing in which he defended the activity and the use of live bait. The host responded that the complainant was ‘pathetic’ and ‘a very sick person’, among other things. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host had offended the complainant on the basis of his Australian Aboriginal culture. The host’s comments to the complainant had no relation to his culture, and were not otherwise unfair. The comments were typical of the robust and opinionated nature of talkback radio, where callers can reasonably expect hosts to disagree with their views, sometimes in a strong and confrontational manner....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show, Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME, having upheld Mrs Stokes’ complaint under the fairness and privacy standards, was insufficient. The broadcast, and particularly the hosts’ deceptive conduct, represented a significant breach of broadcasting standards and a lack of understanding of an individual’s fundamental right to fair treatment and to privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jeremy Wells' 'Like Mike' skit on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated, in which he parodied radio and television presenter Mike Hosking, Mr Wells discussed the flag debate and his admiration for John Key. Imitating Mr Hosking's voice he said, 'I was pleasuring myself watching John Key on Parliament TV the other day, and, just when things were coming to a climax, they cut to [Labour leader Andrew] Little and I lost thickness immediately'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comment breached standards of good taste and decency. The item was clearly satirical and intended to be humorous, and was consistent with audience expectations of Mr Wells, Mr Hosking, the programme and the radio station. The comments were inexplicit and in the nature of innuendo, and would have gone over the heads of most children....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding MPs being infected with COVID-19 and mask-wearing breached multiple broadcasting standards. The Authority found the host’s comment that she would rather get COVID-19 than wear a mask all day was unlikely to seriously violate community standards of taste and decency. The comment did not relate to a recognised section of the community as contemplated by the discrimination and denigration standard or reach a threshold necessary to constitute discrimination or denigration. Nor did the broadcast ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance as required for the balance standard to apply, and the comment at issue was an opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and which was unlikely to mislead the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine an accuracy complaint about a news bulletin referring to ‘Cyclone Gabrielle’ when, at the relevant time, it was a sub-tropical low. Given the sub-tropical low remained an extreme weather event, the Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination. Declined to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Accuracy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show made comments that Chihuahuas look like ‘ball bags’ and ‘a scrotum with four legs’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments breached standards of good taste and decency. They were clearly intended to be humorous, and while children could have been listening at 3. 25pm, they would not have offended most listeners taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the station’s target audience and the expectations of regular listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction[1] During the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show, the hosts commented on a listener’s text message about their pet Chihuahua, saying, ‘[Chihuahuas] are like a little skin ball bag thing, aren’t they…? ’, and, ‘They are a scrotum with four legs, those dogs’....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Hauraki – hosts on breakfast show referred to Helen Clark donating a testicle – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and social responsibility. Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item light-hearted and satirical in nature – broadcaster was mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 8. 30am on 11 May 2007, Radio Hauraki broadcast a segment in its breakfast show hosted by the "Morning Pirates", Willy De Wit, Mark Perry and Dean Butler. One of the hosts described a story about a woman in the UK who had recently donated her kidney to her employer, who was in need of a transplant....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard in relation to comments about a celebrity dining at an Indian restaurant on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The complaint alleged comments made by the host were racist, including questioning how a $97,000 bill could be possible at an Indian restaurant and questioning the choice to go there. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required for a breach of the standard.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme misled the public by giving ‘the impression’ the National Party’s policies would support public services, which was in ‘direct contradiction to their proposed policies’. The Authority considered listeners would have understood the programme as a typical advertisement for the Party, encouraging the public to vote for National. By their nature, such programmes are not factual and are often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy. Further, it is not the Authority’s role to analyse the likely implications of any Party’s policies (which are not quantified promises, guarantees, or statements of fact), and listeners are able to form their own views about any given policy with reference to the broad range of available media coverage and other publicly available information. Not Upheld: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley discussing Ministry of Education guidelines for relationships and sexuality education breached the children’s interests standard. As part of the segment, the hosts indicated they wanted to talk about ‘the wild things that you were taught at sex ed. ’ The complainant considered the segment, which featured discussion of genitalia and how to use condoms, was inappropriate to air in the morning when parents were taking their children to school. The Authority found the segment was within audience expectations for the programme and the radio station, ZM, and the nature of the upcoming discussion was sufficiently signposted to allow parents or caregivers to exercise discretion over their children’s listening....

The majority of the Authority did not uphold a complaint that a comment made by Mike Hosking during a ‘Mike’s Minute’ segment of Mike Hosking Breakfast about the government’s surplus breached the accuracy standard. The majority found that, considering a number of contextual factors, the statement was one of comment and political analysis, the type of which is common in news and current affairs broadcasts to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The minority view was that Mr Hosking’s comment was an inaccurate statement of fact on which he then based his opinion and that the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the statement on which the following comments were based. Not Upheld by Majority: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the fairness standard during an episode of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive was insufficient. The complaint related to an interview with a 16-year-old climate activist about the Schools Strike for Climate movement, and the group’s key demands. During the interview, the interviewee admitted she had recently travelled to Fiji, despite one of the group’s demands being a ban on ‘unnecessary air travel’. This resulted in the host hysterically laughing at, and teasing the interviewee for over a minute. The broadcaster conceded in light of the interviewee’s age and potential vulnerability, the segment breached the fairness standard. The Authority determined it too would have found a breach of the fairness standard, but in the circumstances considered the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to address the breach....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint which allegedly featured ‘gendered and vulgar’ language on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The presenter suggested the Prime Minister needed to grow ‘a bigger set of balls’ in response to his handling of the resignation of cabinet minister Andrew Bayly. The Authority concluded the presenter’s language, while provocative, was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress among the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content ...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a Newstalk ZB news item reporting Israel’s bombing of a Gaza City school and included an academic’s perspective on the incident. The complainant argued the broadcast was misleading by not mentioning that the school was (according to Israel) a Hamas command post and therefore a ‘legitimate target’, and by including the academic’s comments. The Authority found the academic’s comments were analysis, comment, or opinion to which the standard does not apply. It also found that choosing to not include Israel’s rationale for the bombing was a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion. The broadcast was not materially inaccurate, and did not give a wrong idea or impression of the facts. Not Upheld: Accuracy...