Search Rapua

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Overnight Talk breached the discrimination and denigration, offensive and disturbing content, and fairness standards. A caller to the show advised the host he believed Russia was acting in ‘the least violent way possible’ in its invasion of Ukraine, to which the host responded heatedly, referring to the caller’s opinion as ‘stupid’ and ‘bullshit’. The Authority was satisfied the language used amounted to low-level language, and the host’s comments, while potentially seen as disrespectful by some, did not reach the level necessary to constitute unfair treatment. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply as the comments were directed at the caller as an individual. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness  ...

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 upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate for the host of The Mike Hosking Breakfast to state, responding to listener feedback asking whether ‘striking teachers do all this on full pay’: ‘Well of course they do! …people who go on strike have always been on full pay. They're supported by the unions. ’ The Authority found: the statement was materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast; text messages read out later in the programme commenting on the pay situation for teachers on rolling strikes as opposed to full strikes did not serve as a correction to Hosking’s earlier inaccuracy; and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The Authority found publication of the decision was sufficient to notify the breach of the accuracy standard and provide guidance to broadcasters, and no further orders were necessary. Upheld: Accuracy No Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast on the criticism faced by London Police following their actions in stopping a vigil for murdered woman Sarah Everard, as participants were not abiding by the COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time. The Authority found the item was not unfair to the London Police Chief or the London Police. It did not actively encourage non-compliance or seriously undermine law and order. The balance standard was not applicable as the item did not amount to a ‘discussion’. Not Upheld: Fairness, Law and Order, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a discussion on Callum & P breached the privacy of a person interviewed on-air by disclosing their COVID-19 vaccination status. The Authority found the interviewee was a willing participant in the disclosure of her vaccination status. On this basis the broadcast did not breach the privacy standard. Not Upheld: Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by a caller on Newstalk ZB’s Tim Roxborogh show. The caller was explaining why he ‘fell out of love with Cuba’ and expressing disbelief that a place so close to the United States could be characterised by what he described as ‘poverty and the sheer nothingness of everything’, also saying, ‘you’re not in Africa… you are 90 miles from America’. The complaint was that this remark equated the entire African continent and its people with poverty, was discriminatory, and was not challenged by the host. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but found the passing reference by a caller did not reach the high threshold for a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

A news bulletin on Newstalk ZB reported on the upcoming speaking tour of New Zealand by Posie Parker. The complainant considered the item’s portrayal of Parker (including through its tone and description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and a ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ rather than a ‘women’s rights campaigner’) was in breach of the balance, fairness, accuracy and discrimination and denigration broadcasting standards. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply as the item was a straightforward news report which did not ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance and, in any event, listeners would have been aware of alternative viewpoints. The Authority also found, given Parker’s views, the descriptions ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ were fair and accurate. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made during Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB regarding the New Zealand Police’s decision to continue with charges against Ms Z, the woman involved in the Jevon McSkimming case. The complaint was that the comments – including labelling their relationship an ‘affair’, saying Ms Z was ‘not innocent’, and referencing ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’ – demonstrated classic ‘victim blaming’, minimised and misrepresented Ms Z’s experience, and were unbalanced and unfair. The Authority considered the segment overall was consistent with well-established audience expectations, and any potential offensiveness or unfairness arising from some of the comments did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression or the public interest. The Authority also found the comments were either clearly opinion or not materially inaccurate and not required to be balanced in the context....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint which allegedly featured ‘gendered and vulgar’ language on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The presenter suggested the Prime Minister needed to grow ‘a bigger set of balls’ in response to his handling of the resignation of cabinet minister Andrew Bayly. The Authority concluded the presenter’s language, while provocative, was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress among the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content ...

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...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Mike Hosking regarding Director General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield. Mr Hosking said Dr Bloomfield ‘lied to the Select Committee’ and was a ‘liar’. The Authority found the accuracy and fairness standards were not breached as the comments were distinguishable as the opinion of the presenter and they did not result in Dr Bloomfield being treated unfairly. Given Dr Bloomfield’s high profile position, he can reasonably expect to be the subject of robust scrutiny. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness  ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a discussion on a talkback segment on Newstalk ZB breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the complainant, who had called in to the programme, was not treated unfairly as she was given an opportunity to voice her opinion and was treated respectfully. The Authority also found that the broadcast’s criticism of United States President Donald Trump did not exceed what could fairly be expected to be levelled against a highly controversial United States President. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the accuracy standard does not apply to statements clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. The discrimination and denigration standard also did not apply as it does not apply to individuals or organisations. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

In a segment on the Mike Hosking Breakfast programme, the host interviewed the Prime Minister about the Government’s decision to extend the Level 3 lockdown restrictions on Auckland in August 2020. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It recognised the value of robust political discourse in the media and the role of media in holding to account those in positions of power. Overall, it found no harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. While some may have found Mr Hosking’s approach and comments distasteful, they did not go beyond what could be expected of an interview of this nature. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Children’s Interests...

A segment on Simon Barnett & James Daniels Afternoons discussed that day’s COVID-19 media conference announcing the likely use of vaccination certificates. The complainant stated the segment breached the accuracy standard as the interviewee indicated there was no detail provided regarding when the certificates would be used, despite the Government providing an indicative date of ‘November’ in the earlier conference. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the segment was materially accurate. In any event, an interview in a later programme on the channel was sufficient to clarify and correct any misleading impression which may have been created. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Kerre McIvor & Mark Dye Afternoons, the hosts had a conversation about tipping in the United States. They discussed a story told by a talkback caller, who said that a church published a Bible pamphlet to be used instead of a monetary tip. One host, who appeared to be reading from the pamphlet, said, ‘Some things are better than money, like your eternal salvation that was bought and paid for by Jesus,’ to which the other host responded by making a vomiting sound. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the vomiting sound made by the host was offensive to Christians and all those who hold religious beliefs. The Authority acknowledged that the host’s reaction would have caused offence to some listeners....

ComplaintRadio Sport – Martin Devlin – Japanese "vile gits" – East Timorese "gooks" – offensive language – racist – denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 1 – talkback context – strong language to be expected – no uphold Principle 7 – reference to East Timorese militia as "gooks" racist and denigratory – upholdOrderCosts of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Japanese were referred to by the host as "vile gits" and "pricks" in the context of their whaling practices on a Radio Sport programme broadcast on 27 September 2000 at about 8. 30am. The host suggested that helicopter gunships should be sent to blow up their whaling boats. Next, a guest contributor on the programme referred to East Timorese militia as "gooks". Doug Richards complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks were offensive and racist....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During his talkback show, host Leighton Smith in a conversation with a caller about the impact of cultural and religious beliefs on others, asked, ‘How do you think the Muslims will fit into that? ’ He then repeated the question as, ‘How do you think the beheaders will fit into that? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this promoted anti-Islamic sentiment and was extremely offensive. While the comment was objectionable, it was relatively brief and not repeated, and did not reach the high threshold necessary to constitute hate speech or encourage discrimination or denigration. Mr Smith was also apparently questioned about the comment by the programme producer and he attempted to explain what he meant....