Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay, Flynny & Jacqui – during live broadcast from Riccarton Park Racecourse one host said to her co-hosts, “I know you haven’t put any bets on because you’re both Jews” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standardFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment was ignorant and perpetuated stereotypes but did not reach the high threshold necessary for encouraging the denigration of, or discrimination against, Jewish people as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] During the ZM drive show, Jay, Flynny & Jacqui, broadcast live from Cup Day at Riccarton Park Racecourse in Christchurch, one of the hosts said to her co-hosts, “You’ve obviously watched the race. I know you haven’t put any bets on because you’re both Jews”. The show was broadcast on ZM on 13 November 2012....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a station identity promo for Newstalk ZB news, which listed the names of the station’s flagship presenters followed by the tagline, ‘all the names you can trust’, breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the accuracy standard did not apply, as this was clearly a piece of station branding or marketing (rather than a news, current affairs or factual programme) and the tagline was clearly promotional, rather than making a statement of fact. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

During Jono and Ben on The Hits radio station, one host commented the weevils in his pantry were ‘procreating faster than a solo mother in Nelson’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard, finding ‘solo mothers’ do not amount to a section of the community to which the standard applies. In any event, the comment did not meet the threshold required to find a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Breakfast Show – host joked “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour used to convey important message about men’s health to target audience – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki between 6am and 9am on Tuesday 14 June 2011, one of the hosts Dean stated, “Alright, so the call is going to go out this morning for a doctor for Men’s Health Week”, and his co-host Nick joked, “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Hauraki Breakfast, hosts Jeremy Wells and Matt Heath discussed smoking marijuana, in relation to several National Party MPs who had recently publicly stated they had never tried it. The hosts took calls from listeners who had also never tried marijuana and asked them why they had never tried it. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast promoted and encouraged the use of marijuana. The Authority found the broadcast amounted to a comedic discussion of smoking marijuana that did not go beyond established audience expectations of Radio Hauraki, Hauraki Breakfast or the hosts. The Authority noted that humour and satire are important aspects of free speech, and found that on this occasion, there was insufficient risk of harm to justify limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

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....

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’....

Paula Rose declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A panel segment during Larry Williams Drive discussed a recent High Court action brought by Phillip Smith against the Department of Corrections (Corrections), in which Mr Smith argued that his freedom of expression had been breached by Corrections staff preventing him from wearing his toupee. At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Mr Williams stated: ‘I say Janet, solitary confinement 24/7, dark room, with his toupee, with a little bit of waterboarding just to make it interesting’. The other panellists laughed, with one commenting, ‘You’re a hard man, Larry’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints that comments by Leighton Smith about climate change issues were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. Mr Smith provided his views in response to a news item, saying that climate change was not predominantly man made and was instead due to ‘normal variability’. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the requirements of the accuracy standard do not apply to statements of analysis, comment or opinion. In this case, the Authority considered it was clear that Mr Smith’s statements amounted to statements of opinion in a talkback context....

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 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....

Summary In the context of a discussion about the re-appointment of the All Black coach, the host of the breakfast show on Radio Sport broadcast by TRN on 15 September 1998 reported that the previous evening he had overheard John Hart in conversation with his wife in a public place saying something like "I thought Ross was supposed to be on my side". Mr Black complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was unethical to report a private conversation, and a breach of Mr Hart’s privacy. TRN responded by noting that the host just happened to be in Mr Hart’s vicinity and overheard the conversation. It emphasised that the host would in no circumstances have engaged in any unethical action to Mr Hart’s detriment....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the hosts of The Big Show about touching their testicles when they were nervous and a school speech titled ‘The Dilworth Way’ breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority found the comments were within audience expectations for the programme and the radio station, Radio Hauraki. In the context the hosts’ conversation was unlikely to cause widespread offence or adversely affect any children who happened to be listening (although they were not the target audience). Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, 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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by Mike Hosking on Mike Hosking Breakfast that he ‘can’t wait’ to be a close contact of a person with COVID-19, and that ‘there’s so much more fun to have’ in relation to the ‘Omicron experience. ’ The Authority found the comments did not breach the good taste and decency standard and were likely tongue-in-cheek, referring to the possible difficulties Hosking would face if working from home. Taking into account audience expectations of Newstalk ZB and Mike Hosking as a host, as well as the flippant, humorous nature of the comments, the Authority found they were unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community standards. Accordingly, they did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

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...

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 action taken by NZME, having upheld Mrs Stokes’ complaint under the fairness and privacy standards, was insufficient. The broadcast, and particularly the hosts’ deceptive conduct, represented a significant breach of broadcasting standards and a lack of understanding of an individual’s fundamental right to fair treatment and to privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Several weeks before Waitangi Day, during Mike’s Minute on Newstalk ZB, host Mike Hosking made comments critical of Ngāpuhi leader Kingi Taurua and his stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mr Hosking also suggested that the Prime Minister should ‘flag Waitangi’ because it is an ‘annual ritual of abuse and anger and ignorance’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item encouraged discrimination against Māori and Ngāpuhi and was unbalanced. While the Authority recognised that Mr Hosking’s comments could be considered by some to be insensitive, they were clearly his opinion and protected under the right to freedom of expression. The comments were not framed as reflecting on Māori generally and did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration....