Search Rapua

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…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-080 Dated the 26th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN McGINLEY of Lower Hutt Broadcaster CHANNEL Z of Wellington J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and took no part in the deliberations. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime Minister’s Hour – Prime Minister John Key hosted Radio Live for an hour – stated that it was an “election-free zone” – Mr Key interviewed Richie McCaw, Sir Richard Branson and Sir Peter Jackson – allegedly in breach of the Election Programmes Code FindingsStandards E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes), E3 (denigration), and E4 (misleading programmes) – broadcast did not amount to an “election programme” for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989 or the Election Programmes Code – in any event the nominated standards were not breached This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Media Works broadcasts in New Zealand through two television stations and many more radio stations. One of its radio stations is Radio Live....

SummaryThe morning broadcast on The Rock on 14 July 1999, included a "joke" about an Indian superette owner and his Pakistani worker. Mr Yousef complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that the joke was offensive and demeaning. He considered that the joke was both in bad taste and cast a "racial and religious slur". The broadcaster responded that the show was targeted at an audience of males aged between 18-39 years and that its style appealed to large numbers of that group. In the broadcaster’s view, those people were entitled to their own radio station which reflected their values, language and attitudes. The RadioWorks declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, Mr Yousef 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 upholds the complaint....

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....

Summary An exchange on The Rock included a conversation between the announcer and an actor portraying a fictitious Australian character called Darryl Brock, during which Darryl Brock asked the announcer whether a woman announcer had "big tits" and if "she bang[ed] like a shithouse door in the wind". The exchange was broadcast at around 9. 00am on 25 November 1999. K E Broad complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used was offensive and totally unacceptable, and that children could have heard it because of the time of the broadcast. The RadioWorks responded that the reference to the woman having "big tits" was "perhaps a little raunchy", but was a slang expression and did not contravene broadcasting standards. As to the second remark, the RadioWorks said that the word "shithouse" was also slang and that this remark did not contravene broadcasting standards either....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a late night talkback programme with a fill-in host, a caller expressed her attitude to the Royal family by reference to what she described as ‘Charles raping Diana’. The host challenged this and asked her what she meant. She spoke about how the Queen ‘devised the “three in the bed” scenario’ and how she felt sorry for Diana. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to rape was unacceptable and the host should have terminated the call. It appeared the caller did not mean ‘rape’ in the literal sense, the conversation was not unduly offensive in the context of a late night talkback programme, and the host acted responsibly by asking the caller to clarify her point....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback host described Minister of Health as a chicken and derelict in her duty – offensive and denigrating FindingsPrinciple 1a – contextual matters – no uphold Principle 7a – comments acceptable on talkback – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Minister of Health was criticised for not going to Christchurch to try to settle a threatened nurses strike there. The comments were made by the host (Bill Ralston) on the talkback station, Radio Pacific, between 11. 00am–2. 00pm on 30 November 2001. [2] David Stott complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments, which included a description of the Minister as a "woof" and "chicken", were insulting, denigrating and in poor taste. [3] As Mr Stott did not receive a response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host stated that the BSA had not upheld a complaint from Māori Television about his comments criticising the channel – stated that Māori Television was “apartheid” and “racist” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that BSA had not upheld the complaint when it had not yet considered the complaint – inaccurate to refer to Māori Television as Te Karere – upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 25 July 2006 at approximately 7....

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....

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....

An Explanatory Note on these decisions can be found after the Appendices. ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women, children, homosexuals, elderly – discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, elderly – broadcaster not mindful of effects of broadcasts on children in the listening audience Findings(1) 17 October broadcast – decline to determine (2) 18 October broadcast – no uphold (3) 19 October broadcast – poem about necrophilia – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 – unsuitable for children – uphold (4) 14 November broadcast - 6. 28am – no uphold (5) 14 November broadcast – 7. 10am – decline to determine (6) 14 November broadcast – 7. 29am – no uphold (7) 14 November broadcast – 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint The Edge – "The Help Desk" – afternoon broadcast – beginning at secondary school – stories about initiation rites – encouraged bullyingFindingsPrinciple 7 – conflicting views of the attitude displayed by announcer – no tape – unsatisfactory – no option but to decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "The Help Desk", broadcast on The Edge on the afternoon of the week beginning 28 January 2002, invited callers to phone in and relate stories about starting at secondary school. [2] Ruth McLean complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the stories involved initiation practices, bullying, intimidation, and violence towards third formers. The announcer, she added, seemed to find the stories entertaining. Moreover, his attitude had encouraged bullying and his lack of social responsibility breached broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – anonymous caller revealed that named person had visited a medical clinic – disclosed confidential medical details – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2,067 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On the afternoon of Monday 9 October 2006, the hosts on The Edge radio station stated that they had “a bit of inside goss” from an anonymous caller who had previously worked at a medical centre for two weeks. The hosts asked “are you breaking patient confidentiality here or something? ” to which the caller laughed....