Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – host expressed view that medical personnel were deliberately overmedicating patients with dementia causing them to die – complainant called station to challenge host’s comments but was cut off – host used the term “zombie” to refer to person with dementia – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcasters have the right to screen calls, as a matter of editorial discretion, provided they comply with the requirements of fairness – host did not make any derogatory or abusive comments but simply chose not to engage with the complainant which was not unexpected in the context of talkback radio and the programme – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host did not make unqualified statements of fact (guideline 5b) – programme was not inaccurate or…...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 New Zealand First Election Advertisement – child stated, “My mum and dad are voting for New Zealand First. They say that Winston will give us a fair go” – allegedly in breach of responsible programming standardFindings Standard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 8 (responsible programming) of the Radio Code – advertisement broadcast in robust political environment during lead-up to the election – reasonable listeners would understand that children are under the legal age to vote – complaint does not raise any issues of broadcasting standards which warrant our consideration – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintTalkback – therapeutic remedy – editorial independence – advertorial – ethical issues FindingsPrinciple 4 – no uphold Principle 7 – host agreed with caller – reference to mainstream medical advice not necessarily required in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A caller, who said her granddaughter had open weeping sores, asked the host on Radio Pacific for his views on the efficacy of colloidal silver and Celtic sea salt in treating her condition. The call was broadcast on 21 February 2000 at about 4. 10am on Radio Pacific. Christopher Ingram complained to The RadioWorks Ltd that the broadcast was not balanced and was irresponsible in not advising the caller to seek medical advice. In addition he expressed his concern about the sponsorship of the programme by a company which made alternative remedies....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – comment from late-night talkback host about people from Christchurch “cuddling their sheep” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard as made reference to bestialityFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – Comment clearly intended to be humorous – no offensive language used – no direct reference to bestiality – comment very mild – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Shortly after midnight during the Radio Pacific late-night talkback show on 20 December 2004, the host, Miles Davis, stated that he did not intend to take any more calls from Christchurch residents, and that they should simply go to bed and “cuddle up to their sheep”. Complaint[2] Bruce Newburgh complained to Radio Pacific that the comment was in bad taste, as it implied that people from Christchurch practised bestiality....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – Valentine’s Day “Win a Divorce” promotion – broadcast was sabotaged by participants – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – concept of the promotion was not reflected in the broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] The Rock radio station ran a promotion called “Win a Divorce” which culminated in a broadcast during Robert and Jono’s Drive Show on the afternoon of 14 February 2012. The hosts rang a second participant on the instructions of the first, her partner, who allegedly wanted a divorce....

SummaryIn a prank telephone call broadcast on Solid Gold FM on 12 June 1998 at about 8. 25am, a woman was called by a man claiming to be her fiance’s boss and was told that he was going to be fired because he was sleeping with the boss’s secretary. The woman reacted with tearful remonstrations, but then admitted that she was having an affair with her fiance’s brother. Anrik Drenth of Wellington complained to the station that the call was distressing and offensive because it was malicious, and listeners were not informed at the conclusion that it was a prank. He noted that the woman had been clearly distressed by the news. In a brief response, the station advised that the call was a hoax and had been set up. It apologised if it caused offence....

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 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....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Morning Grill – reference to an Authority decision ordering complainant to pay costs to the broadcaster as complaint to broadcaster about use of the word "bugger" was vexatious – "bugger" – offensive language – no tape FindingsPrinciple 1 and Guideline 1a – absence of tape – unable to assess tone – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A decision from the Broadcasting Standards Authority was referred to by the presenters of Morning Grill on Radio Pacific between 6. 00–9. 00am on 31 July 2002. The decision involved the Authority ordering a complainant to pay a broadcaster costs of $150 as the Authority found the complaint about a broadcast which contained the word "bugger" was vexatious. The broadcast on Radio Pacific also used the word "bugger"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Rumble – breakfast show hosts on The Rock discussed a story featured on Close Up the previous night about two girls who alleged that, twelve-years prior, an ex-All Black had engaged in sexual activity with one of them while she had been unconscious – the hosts noted that the girl had accepted a payment from the man to settle the matter – one host made the comment, “See, all I see is that that woman and her mate have cashed in at both ends” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – some elements of unfairness – however, hosts entitled to voice their opinions in the manner in which they did – freedom of expression – not upheldStandard 4…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Solid Gold – The Edge – The Rock – messages broadcast over 4 days asking anyone who knew whereabouts of complainant to contact The RadioWorks – improper use of missing person report – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsPrinciple 3, guideline 3a – privacy principle (iii) – disclosure of name because of a company’s unpaid debt – intrusion into seclusion – majority uphold; privacy principle (iv) – no intention to ridicule – no uphold; privacy principle (v) – no public interest in name disclosure – majority uphold Principle 5, guideline 5c – reference to complainant unfair – majority uphold No Order This 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(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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments that communities in the Far North of New Zealand were an “underclass” whose children would be “feral” and that welfare benefits should be given to stop them having children – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – talkback radio is a robust environment – host’s comments were extreme but encouraged discussion of a legitimate issue – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Māori in the Far North – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments did not stray beyond norms of good taste and decency – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryHost John Banks described parking wardens as "low lifes" in his programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 26 August 1999 at about 8. 15am. Adele Baulch complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that as a former parking warden she found the comment objectionable. She sought a public apology from Mr Banks to all parking wardens in New Zealand. The broadcaster responded that no malice had been intended by the remark but admitted that the host’s language had been "a little strong". It apologised for distress caused to the complainant, and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with The RadioWorks’ decision, Mrs Baulch referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. DecisionThe members of the Authority have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom Show – during segment called “The Olympic Athletes Hall of Names” the hosts joked about the names of athletes – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were a light-hearted attempt at humour – focus of comments was athletes’ names, not their nationalities – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – focus of comments was the individuals’ names and not their nationalities – comments were intended to be humorous and did not carry any invective – did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comments not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintThe Edge – listeners asked to call station mid afternoon – hot topic – frequency of sex – reference to self pleasure and pain of some sexual experiences – offensive and inappropriate for children – recommended uphold by broadcaster as inappropriate for children – Principle 7 and guideline 7a – announcer spoken toFindingsPrinciple 1 – adult topic during children’s normal viewing times – context and Bill of Rights – no upholdPrinciple 7 guideline 7a – agree with broadcaster’s recommendation – uphold – no orderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The frequency of sex was the "hot topic" for the listener phone-in programme broadcast by The Edge from 4. 05pm on 29 November 2001. One caller asked if the topic included self-pleasure, and another said frequent or long sexual encounters could be painful....

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…...