Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a discussion on Radio Sport's Crowd Goes Wild Breakfast show about the Black Caps' recent win over Bangladesh, one of the hosts said that anyone who criticised cricketer Martin Guptill could 'take your criticism and ram it up your arse'. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this comment was irresponsible and inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children were likely to be listening. The language used would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners taking into account audience expectations of the hosts' well-known style, and of Radio Sport. The segment was otherwise innocuous and was not targeted at children. Not Upheld: Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During the Crowd Goes Wild Breakfast show on Radio Sport, the hosts discussed the Black Caps' recent win over Bangladesh....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast of the song Long Gone by Six60, which included four instances of the line ‘Someday, when you give a fuck’, censored so the word ‘fuck’ was partially silenced. In the context, including the nature of the programme and intended audience, the Authority found the song was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress, or harm to children. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

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...

During the programme Sunday Mornings with The Resident Builder on Newstalk ZB, the host described how he used to make an implement to shoot fireworks as a young boy, ‘à la a good old fashioned sort of flintlock. ’ The complainant alleged these comments could have encouraged children listening to imitate the host’s actions and put themselves or others in danger, in breach of the children’s interests standard. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments were not likely to adversely affect children, taking into account the programme’s target audience and the nature of the comments.   Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

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 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....

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....

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 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 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’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Leighton Smith the host discussed Wicked Campers with a caller and commented, ‘Now I’m interested to know what your reaction is to my suggestion that if you see one of these, you know, if you’re offended by one of these vans, run a screwdriver down through the so-called artwork’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were irresponsible and encouraged listeners to break the law. It did not consider Mr Smith was seriously advocating damaging the campervans or that listeners would have been incited to commit unlawful acts, taking into account the target audience and the nature of the programme....

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

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(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes – however the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – attempt at humour and satire – freedom of expression outweighed potential harm caused – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – guideline 7a provides exemption for humour and satire – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an interview with Judith Collins breached the law and order standard. The interviewer asked Ms Collins to clarify what she meant when she said, regarding Police Minister Poto Williams, ‘I think a lot of people want to bottle her’. Ms Collins explained she meant Minister Williams should be kept in a bottle ‘like a genie in a bottle’. The line of questioning was reasonable in the context, and the item did not actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

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...

Following an interview with Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, Mike Hosking, on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show, replayed the interview and commented on the length of a pause during the interview. In doing so, Hosking questioned whether it was a ‘pause or a gabble’ and included sound effects of trucks passing and a turkey gobbling to ‘measure’ the pause. The complainants allege this second segment breached five standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it belittled the Associate Health Minister. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards and was not unfair to the Associate Health Minister. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard during a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley on ZM was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the item, which discussed searching for the cheapest alcohol with the highest alcohol by volume (ABV), amounted to alcohol promotion that was socially irresponsible. While the broadcaster upheld the complaint, removed the relevant segment from their online podcast and counselled the content directors and hosts of ZM on their obligations around alcohol promotion, the Authority found this was insufficient to remedy the harm caused by the broadcast – noting, in particular, there had not yet been any public acknowledgement of the breach for the audience. Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour (Action Taken) Order: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement ...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...