Showing 141 - 151 of 151 results.
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show made comments that Chihuahuas look like ‘ball bags’ and ‘a scrotum with four legs’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that these comments breached standards of good taste and decency. They were clearly intended to be humorous, and while children could have been listening at 3. 25pm, they would not have offended most listeners taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the station’s target audience and the expectations of regular listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction[1] During the Jay, Flynny and Zoe Marshall show, the hosts commented on a listener’s text message about their pet Chihuahua, saying, ‘[Chihuahuas] are like a little skin ball bag thing, aren’t they…? ’, and, ‘They are a scrotum with four legs, those dogs’....
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. ]During a talkback segment on Sportstalk, the host Mark Watson criticised northern hemisphere sports media and the British and Irish Lions rugby team. The host made provocative statements about the Lions team who were at that time touring New Zealand, saying, among other things, ‘hopefully you get smashed’. The host then engaged in a heated discussion with a talkback caller about northern hemisphere rugby and rugby media. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host’s comments undermined broadcasting standards. The comments made, while critical and provocative, did not exceed audience expectations within the robust and opinionated environment of talkback radio, and particularly on Radio Sport. The Authority noted that the free and frank expression of opinions is an important aspect of the right to freedom of expression, and is valued in our society....
Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport – Terror Talkback – breakfast host Martin Devlin telephoned randomly a person with same name as sportsperson in the news – alleged intentional intrusion in person’s seclusion – breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 – Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle iii – the broadcast telephone call did not amount to prying – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “Terror Talkback” is a regular feature of the Martin Devlin Breakfast Show on Radio Sport. It involves a telephone call to a person selected randomly who has the same name as a sportsperson in the news. At about 6. 20am on 23 February 2004, the host referred to the appointment of a Mr Shand as the Manager of the All Blacks. He then indicated he had randomly chosen the telephone number of a Mr Shand....
The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard in relation to comments about a celebrity dining at an Indian restaurant on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The complaint alleged comments made by the host were racist, including questioning how a $97,000 bill could be possible at an Indian restaurant and questioning the choice to go there. The Authority acknowledged the comments had the potential to cause offence, but found they did not meet the high threshold required for a breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...
Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....
The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a comment by Mike Hosking referring to unvaccinated New Zealanders as ‘idiots’. The comment was unlikely to cause widespread offence and was a legitimate expression of opinion. Accordingly, it did not reach the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...
Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Morning Crew – game called “Racial Profiling” in which hosts and contestant were asked to decide whether individuals who had committed certain offences in the United States were “black, white or Asian” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – on the face of it the game perpetuated racial stereotypes – however the outcome as broadcast demonstrated flaws in stereotyping – attempt at humour and satire – freedom of expression outweighed potential harm caused – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any of the groups referred to as sections of the community – guideline 7a provides exemption for humour and satire – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....
Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive – host and producer referred to rugby players as “Jesus” and “God” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – use of “Jesus” and “God” to compliment rugby players would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context – comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive on Radio Sport, the host and producer discussed the selection of the All Blacks training squad, including a rookie, Steven Luatua, who played for the Auckland Blues....
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 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...