Search Rapua

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....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings (1) 5 August broadcast – no uphold(2) 6 August broadcast – no uphold (3) 7 August broadcast – no uphold (4) 10 August broadcast – reference to wanking unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold (5) 11 August broadcast – discussion with child character about pornography – unsuitable for children – Principle 7b – uphold(6) 21 August broadcast – gratuitous use of "fuck" – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7b – unsuitable for children – uphold; discussion about plasticine penis – no uphold; mocking of homosexuals – Principle 1 – uphold;…...

ComplaintThe Rock – 14 complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings in Part I of DecisionFive complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1; three complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1 and Principle 7; one complaint upheld on basis that action taken insufficient Part I interim decision issued – submissions on penalty called for Submissions on PenaltySubstantive points made by The RadioWorks – "relevant submission" under section 10(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 RadioWorks’ SubmissionBroadcasting Standards Authority in breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – insufficient weight given to freedom of expression – Authority’s approach inconsistent with Court of Appeal’s Moonen decision Broadcasting Act – broadcasters responsible for maintaining standards – Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice developed by broadcasters and approved by Authority Bill of Rights – applies to Authority – applies…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific – question posed by talkback host – "what is wrong with a father having sex with his daughter anyway? " – breach of good taste – upheld by Radio Pacific – verbal warning given to host – action insufficientFindingsInsufficient action – upholdOrder Letter of apology to be sent to complainantThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe host of a Radio Pacific talkback session, broadcast at 3. 00am on 27 December 2000, made the comment on air to a caller, "what is wrong with a father having sex with his daughter anyway? " The topic of incest had arisen in the conversation. Wendy Dickinson complained to the broadcaster, The Radio Works New Zealand Ltd, that the talkback host’s comments were "abhorrent", and should not have been made on radio....

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....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – broadcasts unsuitable for children Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) 22 November broadcast – 6. 31am – Principle 1 – uphold (3) 22 November broadcast – 6. 39am – no uphold (4) 23 November broadcast – 6. 39am – Principle 1 – uphold (5) 26 November broadcast – 7. 40am – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 and Guideline 7b – uphold (6) 27 November broadcast – 6. 35am – action taken insufficient – uphold (7) 30 November broadcast – 6. 36am – action taken insufficient – uphold (8) 6 December broadcast – 6. 19am – no uphold OrderTotal costs to the Crown in the sum of $3,000Cross-references: 2001-071–084; 2001-138–204 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Madhouse – The Edge – hosts commented on the name “Chris Peacock” – references to an item on KFC menu called “crispy cock” – mock advertisement containing references to oral sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – sustained and repetitive sexual references – likely that young people would have been listening – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] At around 7. 55am on 26 October 2004 the hosts of The Morning Madhouse on the radio station The Edge joked about a complaint they had received from a person by the name of Chris Peacock....

ComplaintThe Edge – ring-in competition – how to deal with unwanted singing hamster – some callers’ suggestions violent and cruel – offensive – illegal – inappropriate for childrenFindingsPrinciple 1 – insufficient information about context – decline to determinePrinciple 2 and Principle 7, guideline b – no tape – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Listeners to The Edge were invited to phone in and suggest ways of dealing with an unwanted singing hamster. The suggestions broadcast between 7. 50–8. 10am on 21 December 2001 involved various degrees of violence and cruelty. [2] Mr Butcher complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the methods were offensive, illegal and inappropriate for broadcast during children’s normal listening times. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr Butcher referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintThe Edge – announcer makes anonymous call to woman – purports to be buying magazines – says has fetish for "shirtless Papua New Guinea women" – threatening and offensive – breach of good taste and decency FindingsPrinciple 1 – sinister – threatening – breach of good taste and decency – uphold OrderBroadcast of summary – costs of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a broadcast on The Edge on 17 October 2001 between 9. 30am and 10. 00am, one of the announcers telephoned a woman who was advertising National Geographic magazines, purporting to be a potential buyer. He told the woman he had a fetish for "topless Papua New Guinea women" and requested copies of the magazines carrying such pictures....

SummaryAccording to the complainant, a Radio Pacific talkback host said "Maori is not a culture" between 6. 00 and 8. 00am on 1 September 1999. Stephen Cotterall said that he complained to Radio Pacific, a division of The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment made by the announcer was racially derogatory and insulting to the tangata whenua. As the broadcaster failed to respond to Mr Cotterall’s complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. When the matter was referred to The RadioWorks, it advised that it had not received Mr Cotterall’s letter of complaint. Nevertheless, it then proceeded to deal with the complaint. The broadcaster advised that the announcer’s comment was a genuine expression of opinion, and it declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

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(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(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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

ComplaintThe Rock – Morning Rumble – competition – the worst things that had ever happened to you when you’ve been drinking – story about drunk youth – stripped – drawn on – urinated over – crutch pushed into rectum – photos taken – person embarrassed and later left school – encourages abuse FindingsPrinciple 1 – story offensive – uphold Principle 7 guideline 7b – 7. 15–8. 15am normally accepted listening time for children – uphold OrderCosts of $2,500 to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A competition entitled "The worst things that have ever happened to you when you’ve been drinking" was run on The Rock between 7. 15–8. 15am on 31 July 2001....

ComplaintThe Edge – comments about Aotea College students – two references to "burning the place down" – reference to breathalysing students – ill-informed, harmful and malicious FindingsPrinciple 5 – misdirected humour – negative comments – borderline – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryComments about Aotea College students, made in the course of a discussion about a secondary school stage competition, were broadcast on The Edge (a radio network) on 30 May 2001 between 3. 00pm and 7. 00pm. The announcer twice asked whether students from Aotea College had burned the venue down, and also asked if they had been breathalysed at the door. Julia Davidson, the principal of Aotea College complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments were ill-informed, harmful and malicious. The RadioWorks did not uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fletch and Vaughan Show – hosts discussed competition – asked winning team what they were going to draw on the faces of the losing team and one of the winners stated “Well on the forehead ‘Vote Team Two’ and on the side of the face a nice little penis just going into the mouth” – broadcaster upheld complaint under good taste and decency – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – action taken by broadcaster adequate considering the nature of the breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Fletch and Vaughan Show, broadcast on The Edge at 3pm on Thursday 9 December 2010, the hosts discussed a competition being run by the radio station....

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....