Search

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview broadcast on Newstalk ZB in December 2018, regarding a proposed Police seizure of military style semi-automatic weapons, was unbalanced and inaccurate. The Authority first found that a valid formal complaint had been lodged with the broadcaster (which was required before the complaint could be referred to the Authority), as sufficient information was provided by the complainant for the correct broadcast to be identified and for the broadcaster to respond to the issues raised. The Authority then determined the complaint, finding that balancing perspectives on the issue of Police seizure were presented during news items prior to and following the interview....

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...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about an item on Hauraki Drive with Thane Kirby, which alleged that Mr Kirby made a comment suggesting COVID-19 contact-tracing information could be used to contact attractive women. There was an issue with identifying the correct time of broadcast, and the broadcast complained about was not retained by the broadcaster, despite the complainant signaling she would be taking the matter further with the Authority. The Authority also noted the broadcaster should have responded early to the complainant so that she had an opportunity to resubmit her complaint within the required timeframe. Without being able to listen to the actual words used in the broadcast, the tone, and the surrounding context, the Authority concluded it must decline to determine the complaint, which it recognized was a very unsatisfactory outcome....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jeremy Wells' 'Like Mike' skit on the Hauraki Breakfast show, in which he parodied radio and television presenter Mike Hosking, Mr Wells made various comments about Māori people and Stewart Islanders. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were racist, offensive and degraded Māori and Stewart Islanders. The item was clearly satirical and intended to be humorous, and was consistent with audience expectations of the programme and the radio station. As satire, the item did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Māori or Stewart Islanders and this form of speech is a legitimate and important exercise of the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Leighton Smith the host discussed Wicked Campers with a caller and commented, ‘Now I’m interested to know what your reaction is to my suggestion that if you see one of these, you know, if you’re offended by one of these vans, run a screwdriver down through the so-called artwork’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were irresponsible and encouraged listeners to break the law. It did not consider Mr Smith was seriously advocating damaging the campervans or that listeners would have been incited to commit unlawful acts, taking into account the target audience and the nature of the programme....

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 under the discrimination and denigration standard about a broadcast in which two co-hosts made fun of the third for giving his pet pig a name shared by ‘one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party’, and the three of them joked about distinguishing names associated with Hitler and the Nazis by spelling them differently. The Authority noted the comments may be considered distasteful, in that they trivialised the notoriety of Hitler and the Nazis, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment on the Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley morning show breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, the hosts made several jokes and innuendos about the name of Irish airline Aer Lingus and one host, putting on an Irish accent, stated ‘on the menu today, we have potatoes’. The complainant considered the jokes to be offensive to Irish people and culture, and to amount to racism. The Authority acknowledged the jokes had the potential to offend, but did not uphold the complaint, finding the jokes did not meet the threshold for a breach under the discrimination and denigration standard as they were unlikely to encourage the different treatment of Irish people to their detriment, devalue the reputation of Irish people, or embed negative stereotypes. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME Radio Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about the use of the phrase ‘you’d have to be on the spectrum’ on Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive programme. As part of a discussion about the ‘political week that was’, political reporter Barry Soper commented, ‘you would have to be on the spectrum to go out there and vote for them [Te Pāti Māori]’, which the complainant considered was discriminatory towards people with autism. The Authority found the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaint, apologise to the complainant, and counsel du Plessis-Allan and Soper on the importance of considering the potential offence and impact of comments on sections of the community, was sufficient in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration (Action Taken)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment made on Newstalk ZB referring to the delays that would result while ‘people are in there determining whether they’re transgender or not’ if the census was to be combined with voting. The complainant argued the comment was condescending and derisive of transgender people and that reference to the question on gender identity was irrelevant to the point the host was making. While recognising the comments may be offensive to some people, in the context they did not meet the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An audio clip promoting the ZM radio station stated that ZM played ‘hit after hit after goddamn hit’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the phrase ‘hit after goddamn hit’ was offensive to those who hold Christian or other religious beliefs and contrary to children’s interests. The Authority acknowledged that use of the term ‘goddamn’ may have caused offence to some listeners. However, in this case it was used as part of the station’s promotional messaging for playing continuous music and was not dwelt upon. Taking into account the right to freedom of expression, and the context of the broadcast, the term ‘goddamn’ could not be said to have encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, all Christians or others who hold religious beliefs....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on The Country featured the host interviewing The Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern not long after she began her term as Prime Minister. Towards the beginning of the interview the host asked the Prime Minister, ‘Do you wake up and say to yourself, “Holy shit! I’m Prime Minister! ” and have to pinch yourself? ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host’s comment breached community norms of good taste and decency and was discriminatory. Taking into account relevant contextual factors including low level of offensive language used, the light-hearted tone, and audience expectations, the broadcast did not threaten community norms of good taste and decency, or justify restricting freedom of expression....

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 declined to determine a complaint alleging Weekend Collective breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The programme referred to protesters occupying Parliament grounds as ‘vermin’. In light of the Authority’s recent finding that the standard does not apply to the protesters, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

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  ...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment called ‘The Huddle’ on the Larry Williams Drive Show, the host and two political bloggers discussed the candidates running for the Labour Party leadership. One of the bloggers referred to two politicians needing their ‘throat cut’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were inappropriate. The comments were brief, intended to be metaphorical, and acceptable in the context of a robust political discussion broadcast on Newstalk ZB. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] During a segment called ‘The Huddle’ on the Larry Williams Drive Show, the host and two political bloggers discussed the candidates running for the Labour Party leadership....

During Mike Hosking Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, Mike Yardley (standing in for Mr Hosking) briefly mentioned the flouting of COVID-19 rules by two named Sky News UK journalists and stated: ‘veteran journalist Adam Boulton is also involved in this’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast breached the accuracy standard by misleading listeners to believe Mr Boulton was one of those who flouted the rules. The Authority acknowledged that, without further clarification, the broadcast may have created that impression. However in all the circumstances the potential harm in a New Zealand broadcasting context was not at a level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Accuracy...