Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Martin Crump Late Night Live – stand-in host encouraged running over possums – complainant phoned the show and disagreed with the host – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and fairness standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – talkback is a robust forum – host’s comments were “tongue-in-cheek” and not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not Authority’s role to determine whether deliberately running over possums is a crime – two callers gave the view that it was irresponsible – host discouraged dangerous driving – broadcast did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was allowed more than two minutes to air his views – callers who disagree with a talkback host’s…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Devlin on Sport – host read out list of swear words from Authority’s survey – attempts made to censor the words, but some were still distinguishable – RadioWorks upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached good taste and decency – action taken allegedly insufficientFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – action taken by broadcaster adequate considering the nature of the breach – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] During an item on Devlin on Sport, broadcast on Radio Live at 3. 45pm on Sunday 28 March 2010, the host briefly discussed a survey conducted by the Broadcasting Standards Authority on swear words in broadcasting after an interviewee had used the word “bullshit” during a discussion. [2] The host stated: They’ve just put out today, the BSA, a media release, for immediate release....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a late night talkback programme with a fill-in host, a caller expressed her attitude to the Royal family by reference to what she described as ‘Charles raping Diana’. The host challenged this and asked her what she meant. She spoke about how the Queen ‘devised the “three in the bed” scenario’ and how she felt sorry for Diana. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to rape was unacceptable and the host should have terminated the call. It appeared the caller did not mean ‘rape’ in the literal sense, the conversation was not unduly offensive in the context of a late night talkback programme, and the host acted responsibly by asking the caller to clarify her point....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – only part of letter from complainant to talkback host read on air – devious and unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 and guideline a – complainant’s views advanced – no uphold Principle 5 and guideline b – editing did not involve distortion – no uphold Principle 6 and guideline a – no deceptive practice used – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a discussion of the terrorist attack in New York City on 11 September 2001, a host of the talkback station, Radio Pacific, was said to have stated on a number of occasions that Osama bin Laden had nuclear weapons and that New Zealand was a likely target. Mark Madigan wrote to the host disputing this claim. He provided sources for his view that, even if bin Laden had nuclear weapons, he would not be able to use them....

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....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws talkback – discussed the release of a report by the Children’s Commissioner and Barnados which stated a quarter of a million children in New Zealand were living below the poverty line – host made critical comments about the Children’s Commissioner and the report – allegedly unfair and failed to present significant viewpoints Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – listeners would not expect a range of balanced views from Michael Laws’ talkback – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – host’s criticisms not unfair in robust talkback environment – important principle of freedom of speech that public officials are open to criticism – not unfair to deny complainant’s request to appear on air during unrelated programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT – hosts interviewed the Prime Minister by telephone – one host joked that they were doing a phone interview because the Prime Minister used to suffer from polio and could not travel to the studio – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments obtuse and clumsy – attempt at humour – comments intended to rib Prime Minister and did not extend to all people who suffered from polio or immobility – within broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Willie and JT programme, broadcast on Radio Live on the afternoon of 8 February 2011, the hosts Willie and JT discussed an imminent telephone interview with the Prime Minister John Key....

ComplaintChannel Z – competition about method of waking up another person – broadcast of male competitor who apparently woke female flatmate with her vibrator – serious criminal offence – offensive behaviourFindingsPrinciple 1 – offensive behaviour described – telephone call recorded – tape reviewed and approved for broadcast – serious error of judgment – upholdOrderBroadcast of approved statement Costs of $2,000 to CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Novel ways of waking a person up were the subject of a competition run on Channel Z. At about 7. 30am on 14 December 2001, Channel Z broadcast a tape of a male competitor waking up a female flatmate in her bedroom by using her vibrator. The broadcast included her invective directed at the competitor when she awoke....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Madhouse – The Edge – host’s comments – men who use moisturiser do not necessarily “take it up the bum” – host’s “arse” so firm he could open a twist top stubby with his “butt cheeks” – various other comments – alleged breach of good taste and decencyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – comments crass and vulgar but did not reach threshold in context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Just before 6. 30am on 16 April 2004, one of the hosts of The Morning Madhouse on radio station The Edge asked listeners to telephone with the answer to the following question: “13% of men secretly do what? ”[2] The first caller suggested that they “shave their balls” and that “females don’t mind getting ‘down there’ and licking”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – broadcast conversation with listener – hosts had told listener that she was not on air – broadcast her cellphone number – listener complained that broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair – broadcaster upheld the complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – action taken insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken insufficient – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Wednesday 27 August 2008 on The Edge radio station, a telephone conversation between the hosts and a listener was broadcast between 5pm and 6pm. The listener expressed concern that the hosts were making inappropriate remarks about people from other countries, such as India and America....

SummaryAn episode of a popular sitcom, in which a character was portrayed using his former girlfriend’s name when taking his marriage vows, was discussed on The Edge at 7. 30am on 20 August 1998. Listeners were invited to discuss what they would do in a similar situation. One male caller said "I’d give her a slap around", to which the host DJ responded "That’s a bit rough mate, isn’t it? "Ms Beston complained to the RadioWorks Waikato, the broadcaster, that the exchange was offensive, and contended that the DJ’s casual response had tacitly condoned violence against women. In her view, the call should have been terminated before the comments were broadcast. She sought an apology from the station. In response, The RadioWorks advised that it considered the host’s response was a natural one which had not in any way endorsed the statement made by the caller....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge Morning Madhouse – host sang jingle about a public figure being “into ladies” – included phrases, “when they make love do they have to put a strap on it”, she “wanted to go rug munching” and she “got sick of dicks” – broadcaster upheld complaint under good taste and decency – action taken allegedly insufficientFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – song lyrics were unacceptable for broadcast at 8. 20am – serious breach of good taste and decency – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld OrdersSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 8....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 New Zealand First Election Advertisement – child stated, “My mum and dad are voting for New Zealand First. They say that Winston will give us a fair go” – allegedly in breach of responsible programming standardFindings Standard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 8 (responsible programming) of the Radio Code – advertisement broadcast in robust political environment during lead-up to the election – reasonable listeners would understand that children are under the legal age to vote – complaint does not raise any issues of broadcasting standards which warrant our consideration – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host made comments about television personality who hosted Anzac Day programme on Māori Television – said she would have been paid “$25,000 or thereabouts” – questioned whether she would have “been allowed to take that lovely piece of greenstone home with her” – host also called Māori Television “disgusting apartheid TV station” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly speculation – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not a “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....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Morning Grill – offensive remarks about the Queen FindingsPrinciple 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7 – no denigration or discrimination – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] On the Morning Grill programme broadcast by Radio Pacific on 2 August 2002 at approximately 6. 04am, the presenters (Pam Corkery and Paul Henry) discussed the Queen’s recent visit to a mosque in Britain. The presenters focused on the fact that entry into the mosque required the Queen to remove her shoes. [2] H B McMeekin complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the presenters’ comments were "insulting, gratuitous, and ageist". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, the broadcaster submitted that the comments complained about were "lighthearted and were not intended to be offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Graeme Hill Show – included commentary from well-known atheist Pat Condell – Mr Condell made negative statements about religion and those who hold religious beliefs – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues and denigration and discrimination standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – Bill of Rights Act – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked the necessary invective to reach the threshold for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – segment was an opinion piece – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Graeme Hill Show was broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 12. 55pm on Saturday 5 September 2009....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host described Minister of Health as a chicken and derelict in her duty – offensive and denigrating FindingsPrinciple 1a – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7a – comments acceptable on talkback – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Minister of Health was criticised for not going to Christchurch to try to settle a threatened nurses strike there. The comments were made by the host (Bill Ralston) on the talkback station, Radio Pacific, between 11. 00am–2. 00pm on 30 November 2001. [2] David Stott complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments, which included a description of the Minister as a "woof" and "chicken", were insulting, denigrating and in poor taste. [3] As Mr Stott did not receive a response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....