Search Rapua

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A regular comedy skit on Radio Sport show The Sauce involved a host impersonating All Blacks coach Steve Hansen and giving ‘top tips’ on various topics. In the segment complained about, the host, mimicking Mr Hansen, addressed the topic of ‘sackings’, stating: ‘. . . Simply whip your scrot [scrotum] out and just rest it casually on their thigh, buttocks or forehead. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment made light of, and condoned, sexual assault. The Authority found that, in the context of the skit, which was a regular comedy skit broadcast weekly on The Sauce, the segment did not make light of, or encourage listeners to laugh about, sexual assault....

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 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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by the presenter of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding a suggestion by a representative of The New Zealand Initiative that New Zealand’s car seat regulations should be relaxed to increase birth rates (with reference to a United States study, ‘Car Seats as Contraception’). The presenter said, ‘And here’s the really challenging thing. Car seat regulations, they reckon might save about 60 children from dying in car crashes in a year across the [United] States, but they stop 8,000 families from having babies. So, you save 60, but you don’t have another 8,000. Maybe you’re better off having the 8,000 and losing the 60 – hey, I said it was going to challenge you. ’ The complaint was that the presenter’s tone and comment was ‘appalling’ and suggested ‘losing 60 kids was not a bad deal’....

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 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 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 about a segment during Days with Lorna Subrtizky on Coast FM discussing Sylvester Stallone’s recent divorce. As part of the segment, the host joked, ‘When he was interviewed about it, Sly Stallone had this to say…’ and played a clip of Stallone garbling unintelligibly, with only the word ‘Rocky’ able to be made out. The complainant considered this to be a cruel and insensitive joke which made fun of Stallone’s (and by implication, others’) disability affecting his speech, in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the joke was directed only at Stallone as an individual, and did not extend to a section of the community as required under the standard. In any event, the broadcast would not have reached the threshold required for finding a breach.   Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging Weekend Collective breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The programme referred to protesters occupying Parliament grounds as ‘vermin’. In light of the Authority’s recent finding that the standard does not apply to the protesters, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

During Mike Hosking Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, Mike Yardley (standing in for Mr Hosking) briefly mentioned the flouting of COVID-19 rules by two named Sky News UK journalists and stated: ‘veteran journalist Adam Boulton is also involved in this’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast breached the accuracy standard by misleading listeners to believe Mr Boulton was one of those who flouted the rules. The Authority acknowledged that, without further clarification, the broadcast may have created that impression. However in all the circumstances the potential harm in a New Zealand broadcasting context was not at a level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that comments made by Kate Hawkesby on Early Edition with Kate Hawkesby, about the newly introduced Equity Adjustor Score in the Auckland region, were misleading. The Equity Adjustor Score is a system which uses five categories to place patients on the non-urgent surgical waitlist, including clinical priority, time spent waiting, location, deprivation level and ethnicity. Hawkesby made statements to the effect that the Score meant Māori and Pacific Peoples were being ‘moved to the top of surgery waitlists’. The Authority found the comments to be materially misleading in relation to the nature and impact of the Score, as they gave the impression that ethnicity was the only, or the key factor, involved in the assessment, and that Māori and Pacific patients would be given immediate precedence on the surgical waitlist as a result, when this was not the case....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME was insufficient, after it upheld a complaint about language used in an interview on The Nutters Club. The interviewee told his story of overcoming drug addiction and offending, and now working to help others do the same. After saying, ‘Excuse all my language I use, too, it will get a little bit worse, it’s just how it is when you remember’, the interviewee used the words ‘fuck’, ‘shit’, and ‘arse’ (and variations of these) repeatedly. The Authority determined it would not have found a breach of the standards in the first instance, in the context of the broadcast....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment on the Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley morning show breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, the hosts made several jokes and innuendos about the name of Irish airline Aer Lingus and one host, putting on an Irish accent, stated ‘on the menu today, we have potatoes’. The complainant considered the jokes to be offensive to Irish people and culture, and to amount to racism. The Authority acknowledged the jokes had the potential to offend, but did not uphold the complaint, finding the jokes did not meet the threshold for a breach under the discrimination and denigration standard as they were unlikely to encourage the different treatment of Irish people to their detriment, devalue the reputation of Irish people, or embed negative stereotypes. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive – host and producer referred to rugby players as “Jesus” and “God” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – use of “Jesus” and “God” to compliment rugby players would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context – comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive on Radio Sport, the host and producer discussed the selection of the All Blacks training squad, including a rookie, Steven Luatua, who played for the Auckland Blues....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a talkback segment on Sportstalk, the host Mark Watson criticised northern hemisphere sports media and the British and Irish Lions rugby team. The host made provocative statements about the Lions team who were at that time touring New Zealand, saying, among other things, ‘hopefully you get smashed’. The host then engaged in a heated discussion with a talkback caller about northern hemisphere rugby and rugby media. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host’s comments undermined broadcasting standards. The comments made, while critical and provocative, did not exceed audience expectations within the robust and opinionated environment of talkback radio, and particularly on Radio Sport. The Authority noted that the free and frank expression of opinions is an important aspect of the right to freedom of expression, and is valued in our society....

The Authority has declined to determine aspects, and not upheld the remainder of a complaint concerning a talkback call regarding vaccine mandates. The complainant had contacted the station and spoke about her son’s issues re-enrolling at university due to his COVID-19 vaccination status. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards as the host did not accept the complainant’s statements concerning the COVID-19 vaccine and related mandates, and prematurely ended the call with the complainant. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under the balance and accuracy standards as the complainant’s concerns have been recently determined in other decisions. The Authority did not uphold the fairness complaint, finding the complainant was not treated unfairly and in any case it was an editorial choice open to the broadcaster to end the call....