Search

Complaint under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Complaints about two broadcasts on Radio Pacific (Mark Bennett talkback) – critical comments by host about Premier House function for actor Sir Ian McKellen – both broadcasts allegedly discriminatory – second broadcast allegedly unbalancedFindings Principle 7, Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments did not encourage discrimination against homosexuals – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in second broadcast – not upheld Broadcasting Act, s. 5(a) – proper procedure for dealing with complaints not followedThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 2 December 2003 at about 3. 30pm, Radio Pacific talkback host Mark Bennett spoke critically about a reception for actor Sir Ian McKellen, which had been held at Premier House....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Breeze – host revealed the fact that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break – statement included wife’s first name – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on The Breeze, broadcast between 6am and 6. 30am on Monday 19 January 2009, the host revealed to listeners that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break. The host disclosed his wife’s first name. Referral to the Authority [2] Barbara White lodged a privacy complaint about the broadcast with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – song called “Fuck You” by Lily Allen was broadcast during the afternoon – the “F” in “fuck” was muted – host explained that the word obscured in the song began with “f” and ended in “u, c, k” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “fuck” inadequately censored – use of the expletive during children’s normally accepted listening times unacceptable – host’s spelling out of the word “fuck” irresponsible – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – broadcaster was not sufficiently mindful of the effect the programme content would have on children – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A song titled “Fuck You” by singer Lily Allen was broadcast on The Edge at 3....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Truth Radio – host made statements about ChildFund and other child sponsorship organisations – allegedly inaccurateFindings Principle 6 (accuracy) – comments made by host were clearly distinguishable as opinion – accuracy standard did not apply – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] During an item broadcast on Radio Pacific’s Truth Radio programme on 28 March 2007, the host John Banks made some comments regarding child sponsorship organisations. The host had taken a call from a listener who wanted to discuss how the organisation Child Fund New Zealand operated. [2] In relation to ChildFund’s operations the host said that it was a: . . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host commented that Māori Television had complained to the BSA about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast – referred to Māori Television as “racist, separatist, and apartheid” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly opinion – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not “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. Broadcast[1] On 16 June 2006 on Radio Pacific at approximately 6. 10am, the host John Banks commented that Māori Television had complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about comments he had made in an earlier broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Pacific – talkback segment discussing Ahmed Zaoui – host said “I don’t care if we shoot him and send him out in a dog food can” – several other statements relating to Mr Zaoui’s activities – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inaccurateFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – decline to determine accuracy of one statement – two statements inaccurate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A talkback segment on Radio Pacific in the early evening on 11 November 2004 discussed the Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui. The host expressed strong views that Mr Zaoui should leave New Zealand, and said “I don’t care if we shoot him and send him out in a dog food can”....

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....

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)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Rock – stunt in which announcers let off fireworks to test “Jimmy’s ability to dodge fireworks” – allegedly in breach of law and order and social responsibility standardsFindings Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Principle 7Principle 7 (social responsibility) – stunt was socially irresponsible – did not consider effects on child listeners – hosts’ manner trivialised the potential danger of aiming fireworks at another person – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] In a segment called “Do Stuff to Jimmy” on The Rock, broadcast at approximately 8. 15am on 20 October 2006, the announcers commented on the recent call to ban fireworks for public sale....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

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(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Complaint sent to Radio Live – broadcast was on Radio Pacific – complainant referred complaint to the Authority as he had not received a response from the broadcaster – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaintFindings Section 8(1)(b) states that a complainant can refer a complaint to the Authority if the broadcaster has not responded after receiving the complaint – complainant did not send his complaint to the correct “broadcaster” – Authority has no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Mike Edgar wrote a letter of complaint to Radio Live regarding comments he said were broadcast on that station at 5. 40am on 27 January 2007. Having received no response from Radio Live, Mr Edgar attempted to refer his complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – host repeatedly referred to the Catholic Church as “the church of paedophilia” and commented that “the church is rife with paedophilia among its priests” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, fairness and accuracy Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issues of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – the church’s representative was given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the comments made by the host – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – host did not make any unqualified statements of fact – the accuracy standard did not apply – not upheld  This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – host prank called the National Poison Centre pretending that a friend had ingested window cleaner – allegedly in breach of social responsibility standard Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – the prank call wasted the Centre’s time and resources – the hosts knew that they did not require assistance from the Centre – the prank call was socially irresponsible – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item called “Win Dom’s Money” broadcast on The Edge at 8am on 9 August 2007, involved a radio personality named Chang being dared to drink a shot glass of glass cleaner for $60. Before the hosts allowed Chang to drink the shot, one of them rang a phone number located on the back of the bottle of glass cleaner....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live talkback – complainant strongly criticised the host’s approach in an interview with Georgina te Heuheu MP – after some two minutes of uninterrupted comment, the host cut off caller and, while declining to identify her, said that she had her own agendas and that she shouldn’t ring because it wasn’t appropriate for her to call talkback – broadcaster’s approach allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – complainant’s criticism of host and host’s criticism of complainant were not controversial issues of public importance - standard does not apply – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – host’s critical response to experienced caller’s criticisms in robust talkback environment not unfair – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – standard does not apply as exchange was neither news nor current affairs – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....