Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley discussing Ministry of Education guidelines for relationships and sexuality education breached the children’s interests standard. As part of the segment, the hosts indicated they wanted to talk about ‘the wild things that you were taught at sex ed. ’ The complainant considered the segment, which featured discussion of genitalia and how to use condoms, was inappropriate to air in the morning when parents were taking their children to school. The Authority found the segment was within audience expectations for the programme and the radio station, ZM, and the nature of the upcoming discussion was sufficiently signposted to allow parents or caregivers to exercise discretion over their children’s listening....

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)...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Thomas the Tanked Engine – use of the word “faggot” – allegedly in breach of social responsibility Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – threshold for denigration not met – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a segment called Thomas the Tanked Engine, broadcast on Radio Hauraki’s Breakfast Show on 29 October 2007, the word “faggot” was used by the character Thomas. The following exchange took place between the characters Thomas and Percy: Thomas: Look Percy, there are the two key members of “King”. Percy: Queen. Thomas: Faggot. Percy: No Thomas, they’re (indistinct), oh never mind. . . Complaint [2] Michael Botur made a formal complaint to The Radio Network (TRN), the broadcaster, alleging that the character’s use of the word “faggot” was in breach of social responsibility standards....

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 that a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley, discussing the statistic that 20% of New Zealanders admitted to ‘snooping’ on their partners’ devices, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. Following a story about a listener catching her partner cheating using his ‘find my iPhone’, the hosts made brief comments that ‘the gays should run a course’. The complainant considered the segment denigrated people who identify as gay and perpetuated a negative stereotype that gay people are sneaky. In the context, the Authority found the comments were unlikely to encourage different treatment of gay people to their detriment or devalue the reputation of gay people. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Complaint received by broadcaster 21 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster declined to consider as a formal complaint – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaintFindingsSection 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act states that complaints must be “lodged in writing with the broadcaster” within 20 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster was not obliged to consider complaint – Authority has no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Nilanka Fonseka wrote a letter of complaint to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) about comments broadcast on 6 February 2006 on ZM radio (90. 9FM). [2] The complaint was received by TRN on 7 March 2006. TRN declined to accept his complaint as a formal complaint, as it had arrived “outside the 20 days allowed since the broadcast to qualify as a formal complaint”....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Mike’s Minute segment on Phase Two of the Royal Commission report Whītiki Aotearoa: further lessons from COVID-19 to prepare Aotearoa New Zealand for a future pandemic. The complainant alleged the segment presented ‘misrepresentations’ and inaccuracies about the findings of the report and was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found the segment overall was consistent with well-established audience expectations of Mike’s Minute and the comments expressed were either clearly opinion or not materially misleading. The Authority also found the broadcast was not required to present significant perspectives under the balance standard, and the fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

A complaint that a radio host asking a caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ breached the discrimination and denigration standard has not been upheld. A broadcast of Afternoons with Andrew Dickens featured a discussion between Mr Dickens and a caller about Māori sovereignty, the Treaty of Waitangi and racism. During the discussion Mr Dickens asked the caller ‘how Māori are you? ’ The Authority found that while the comment was patronising, misinformed and likely to offend some listeners, it did not contain the level of condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and therefore any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: 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  ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an interview with Judith Collins breached the law and order standard. The interviewer asked Ms Collins to clarify what she meant when she said, regarding Police Minister Poto Williams, ‘I think a lot of people want to bottle her’. Ms Collins explained she meant Minister Williams should be kept in a bottle ‘like a genie in a bottle’. The line of questioning was reasonable in the context, and the item did not actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour. Not Upheld: Law and 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 found it was appropriate to decline to determine a complaint about the mispronunciation of Māori place name ‘Matamata’ during a radio item on Newstalk ZB. While it recognised the importance of the proper pronunciation and use of te reo as an official New Zealand language, it noted concerns about unintentional mispronunciation cannot be properly addressed under the broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

Following an interview with Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, Mike Hosking, on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show, replayed the interview and commented on the length of a pause during the interview. In doing so, Hosking questioned whether it was a ‘pause or a gabble’ and included sound effects of trucks passing and a turkey gobbling to ‘measure’ the pause. The complainants allege this second segment breached five standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it belittled the Associate Health Minister. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards and was not unfair to the Associate Health Minister. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a replay of a broadcast of Brad and Laura on The Hits breached the promotion of illegal or serious antisocial behaviour standard by presenting the action of running over ‘carpark savers’ as humorous. The show discussed the issue of people standing in carparks to save them for other people, and featured interaction with listeners in response to this, which included the suggestion of running over people saving carparks. Overall the Authority did not consider the likely impact of this programme would be to encourage the audience to actually run over ‘carpark savers. ’ The audience would have understood the hosts’ reaction of giving a caller who made this suggestion a prize was merely an appreciative response to their joke, which was clearly hyperbole and intended to be humorous. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

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...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning comments by the host of Newstalk ZB’s Overnight Talk responding to a listener’s question about what you should/should not include on your CV. The complainant considered the host’s references to ‘neo-Nazi dress-up parties’ and being a fan of the Ku Klux Klan as examples of ‘things you wouldn’t want to put on your CV’ were offensive and ‘almost glorifying’ of Nazis. The Authority did not consider the comments glorified Nazis, and found in the context the comments did not seriously threaten community standards of taste and decency and would not have disproportionately offended the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content...

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...