Search

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....

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 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 regarding a broadcast in which the host commented on the US election results and suggested outgoing President Trump had been defrauded of votes, particularly in Georgia. Listeners would have been well aware of other views and not expected a balanced approach to the issue in the context of a talkback programme which approached the subject from a particular perspective. The complainant also did not identify any person or organisation that was treated unfairly in the broadcast. In any event, the discussion of US political events, in the context of the broadcast, was unlikely to cause unfairness. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by a caller on Newstalk ZB’s Tim Roxborogh show. The caller was explaining why he ‘fell out of love with Cuba’ and expressing disbelief that a place so close to the United States could be characterised by what he described as ‘poverty and the sheer nothingness of everything’, also saying, ‘you’re not in Africa… you are 90 miles from America’. The complaint was that this remark equated the entire African continent and its people with poverty, was discriminatory, and was not challenged by the host. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but found the passing reference by a caller did not reach the high threshold for a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On two occasions, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments were unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children could be listening. The comments were consistent with the expectations of Radio Hauraki’s adult target audience, and would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners. Both items were light-hearted and intended to be humorous rather than offensive. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In two separate items, the presenters of the Hauraki Breakfast Show made comments about masturbation. The first item was broadcast on 5 March 2014 at 7. 34am and the second item was broadcast on 27 March 2014 at 7. 50am....

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. ]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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a radio host’s description of a rugby match between the Blues and the Crusaders as ‘a battle of good versus evil’ breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the comment was used to describe a competitive sporting rivalry between the Blues and the Crusaders and in context it was not likely to cause undue distress or harm. The Authority determined that the comment was not unfair to the Crusaders as it was a general comment about the nature of the match, and that there was no identified section of the community for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and the value of hearing the authentic New Zealand voice. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

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 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...

The Authority did not uphold complaints that an item on Kerre McIvor Mornings breached the accuracy standard. The content was likely to be interpreted as commentary and opinion, and not statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. In terms of the balance standard, it was clearly presented from the host’s perspective. Given the nature of the programme, listeners were unlikely to have been misled by the omission of other views. The Authority also found that, in its context, the segment was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or undermine widely shared community standards, did not actively promote serious antisocial or illegal activity and was not unfair to the Government or Prime Minister. Accordingly it did not breach the good taste and decency, law and order or fairness standards.      Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Good taste and decency, Law and order, Fairness...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Following news of Kim and Mona Dotcom’s marriage breakup, the Hauraki Breakfast Show featured a satirical interview with a sex therapist. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was offensive and in bad taste, and unsuitable for broadcast at 8. 35am. The content was typical of Radio Hauraki and would not have unduly surprised or offended regular listeners. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] In the wake of Kim and Mona Dotcom’s marriage break-up, three hosts on the Hauraki Breakfast Show interviewed a ‘sex therapist’ on the issue of what they described as ‘big on small sex’. The ‘sex therapist’ was apparently not a real doctor, but playing the part in a scripted satirical skit. The discussion was broadcast at 8. 35am on Radio Hauraki on 19 May 2014....

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...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about Mike Hosking’s statement on Mike Hosking Breakfast that the Duchess of Sussex was a ‘shallow, self-absorbed, attention-seeking, woke bandwagon-riding hussy’. The Authority found it was not likely to cause widespread, undue offence in the context. Although the discrimination and denigration standard applied, as the word ‘hussy’ may refer to and reflect upon women as a section of society, the comments did not meet the threshold justifying regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration...

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 about comments by Kate Hawkesby regarding Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield. Hawkesby made several comments about Dr Bloomfield, alleging he has underperformed in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Authority found the fairness standard was 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 commentary. Not Upheld: Fairness  ...