Search Rapua

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about an item on Mike Hosking Breakfast. The complainant was concerned about a discussion of unvaccinated health workers, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainant’s personal views and in all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport Farming Show – host referred to man as a “pommy git” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – word “pommy” unlikely to offend, insult or intimidate – expression “pommy git” not derogatory – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a brief interview on the Radio Sport Farming Show, broadcast at 6. 50am on Saturday 31 October 2009, the host asked the interviewee: Don, should the New Zealand farmers be fearing a bloke, a pommy git by the name of Lord Steyn? [2] The interviewee explained that Lord Johan Steyn had been advocating vegetarianism and the discontinuance of farming livestock as methods to battle greenhouse gas emissions....

On an episode of Simon Barnett and Phil Gifford Afternoons, an expert and the hosts made inaccurate statements about the Government’s COVID-19 economic recovery package shortly after its announcement. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the accuracy standard, finding that the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme did not mislead and had promptly corrected the error. The Authority highlighted the importance of information broadcast by experts being accurate and, consequently, the importance of any errors being corrected as soon as possible. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Complaint received by broadcaster 21 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster declined to consider as a formal complaint – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaintFindingsSection 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act states that complaints must be “lodged in writing with the broadcaster” within 20 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster was not obliged to consider complaint – Authority has no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Nilanka Fonseka wrote a letter of complaint to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) about comments broadcast on 6 February 2006 on ZM radio (90. 9FM). [2] The complaint was received by TRN on 7 March 2006. TRN declined to accept his complaint as a formal complaint, as it had arrived “outside the 20 days allowed since the broadcast to qualify as a formal complaint”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

A complaint that a radio host asking a caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ breached the discrimination and denigration standard has not been upheld. A broadcast of Afternoons with Andrew Dickens featured a discussion between Mr Dickens and a caller about Māori sovereignty, the Treaty of Waitangi and racism. During the discussion Mr Dickens asked the caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ The Authority found that while the comment was patronising, misinformed and likely to offend some listeners, it did not contain the level of condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and therefore any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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’....

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 comments made by Jack Tame during his morning show including the statement ‘Māori don’t just deserve special treatment, but are contractually guaranteed a form of special treatment under the Treaty’. The Authority found, in context, the comment amounted to analysis to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The comment was not the focus of the discussion, and an opinion-based segment such as this is not required to provide alternate perspectives under the balance standard. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

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 not upheld a complaint a segment of Overnight Talk breached several standards. In the programme, a caller to the show queried the validity of the host’s statement that 1400 Israelis had died in the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, and asked what evidence the host had of the attack. The host’s response included suggesting the caller should not be ‘an idiot’, saying he was not going to waste his time, terminating the call and advising the caller that they could see ‘uncensored footage’ of the attack on the ‘deepest, darkest parts of the internet’ if they needed evidence....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an editorial segment on KPMG Early Edition, host Rachel Smalley discussed the standing down of British Labour MP Naz Shah after accusations of anti-Semitism. Ms Smalley went on to question why criticism of Israel is often viewed as criticism of the Jewish faith, referring to comments she made during a broadcast in 2014 which were critical of Israel and the ‘abuse’ she received in response. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that Ms Smalley’s reference to her previous comments was misleading – partly because she did not refer to the Authority’s finding that one of her previous statements was inaccurate – and that the item was unbalanced....

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....

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...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Sport – played soundtrack which conveyed the impression that a woman was having sex with a bull – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – soundtrack was gratuitous and prolonged – theme of bestiality would have offended a significant number of listeners – played when children were likely to be listening – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 10. 15am on Sunday 22 October 2006, the presenter of Radio Sport played an audio track containing sounds which conveyed the impression that a woman was having sex with a bull. The soundtrack lasted for 34 seconds, after which the presenter made the following comments: My god is there nothing those people won’t get up to up there....

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 broadcast breached Mrs Stokes’ privacy. Mrs Stokes had a reasonable expectation that, in the circumstances, her phone call and the conversation would remain private. The recording and broadcast of her conversation, in circumstances where she had expressly asked for privacy was objectionable and would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the complainant’s position....

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....