Search Rapua

In a segment on the Mike Hosking Breakfast programme, the host interviewed the Prime Minister about the Government’s decision to extend the Level 3 lockdown restrictions on Auckland in August 2020. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It recognised the value of robust political discourse in the media and the role of media in holding to account those in positions of power. Overall, it found no harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. While some may have found Mr Hosking’s approach and comments distasteful, they did not go beyond what could be expected of an interview of this nature. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that comments made by Mike Hosking during his ‘Mike’s Minute’ segment were misleading in breach of the accuracy standard. Mr Hosking made statements referring to death-rate statistics in Italy related to COVID-19, including that ‘99. 2% percent died with underlying health issues. In other words, the very things that were killing them anyway, at over 1,600 per day’. The Authority found the comments were misleading as the broadcaster conflated its own conclusions, drawn from a study into Italy’s COVID-19 figures, with the figure of 1,600 deaths per day, which was based on 2018 population data and ignored both cause of death and the notion of ‘excess mortality’. In this respect, the Authority emphasised the importance of data literacy among broadcasters and journalists, to ensure statistics are not misinterpreted or misrepresented....

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. ] A host on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated was required to argue that free-range eggs were ‘penis’ (stupid or absurd). The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were disgusting and unsuitable for broadcast in the middle of the day. While parts of the broadcast were crude, the content did not go beyond audience expectations of Radio Hauraki or this programme. Most regular listeners would have taken the comments as humorous and light-hearted, and would not have been unduly offended. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] In a regular segment called ‘Penis or Genius’ on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated, one of the hosts was required to argue that free-range eggs were ‘penis’ – used by the programme to denote something that is ‘stupid’ or ‘absurd’....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – comment included a statement that the Green Party was the party of square dancers – complainant objected to square dancers being associated with the Green Party – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated square dancersFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant to complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – square dancers not a “section of the community” to which the guideline applies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 6 June 2006 at approximately 7....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached Mrs Stokes’ privacy. Mrs Stokes had a reasonable expectation that, in the circumstances, her phone call and the conversation would remain private. The recording and broadcast of her conversation, in circumstances where she had expressly asked for privacy was objectionable and would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the complainant’s position....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – host discussed recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai – made various comments about Muslims and terrorism – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme was an opinion piece – lacked the necessary invective to cross the threshold for denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues - viewpoints) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Muslim people – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – reference to streaking incident during rugby game – host commented that streaker used baby oil “no doubt to prepare himself for the police baton” – alleged breach of good taste and decency, balance, fairness and accuracyFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – does not apply to editorial/opinion pieces – not upheld Principle 7 – Guideline 7a (denigration) – police not denigrated – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 8. 00am on 23 March 2004 the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB (Paul Holmes) commented about a streaker incident which occurred during a Super 12 Rugby game at Hamilton Park....

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...

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Advertising Standards Complaints Board upheld a complaint about a Levi jeans advertisement – host critical of what he regarded as religious bigotry – socially irresponsible – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 6 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 7 – satire – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Paul Holmes, as the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, was highly critical of religious bigotry which, he contended, was the motivation for some people to complain about a television advertisement for Levi jeans. He expressed the view, by way of comment, in a broadcast shortly before 8. 00am on 27 August 2003. [2] Ross Craig complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments lacked balance, fairness and accuracy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a satirical segment would have been offensive to Christians. The segment was an imagined promo for reality show The Block, set in Jerusalem and featured contestants who shared the names of biblical figures, including Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Thomas and Judas. The promo was broadcast on Good Friday. The Authority did not consider the broadcast’s content would have unduly offended or distressed the general audience, and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The broadcast did not cause actual or potential harm at a level which justified limiting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority did not uphold an accuracy complaint about Mike Hosking’s comments on the COVID-19 testing regime during his ‘Mike’s Minute’ segment on Newstalk ZB. The complaint was that the segment was inaccurate and misleading, for example by suggesting the Prime Minister was encouraging COVID-19 testing to scare the public and as a political ploy. The Authority found the statements made by Mr Hosking were expressions of his own opinion and analysis to which the accuracy standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – reference to Israelis – “they’ve got balls but no foreskins” – allegedly offensive and derogatory Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (encouraging denigration or discrimination) – neither denigration nor discrimination seriously encouraged – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] While speaking with regular Sydney correspondent Steve Price about terrorism in the Middle East among other matters, the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast (Paul Holmes) commented about the Israelis: “They’ve got balls but no foreskins”. The comment was made on Newstalk ZB at about 6. 55am on Tuesday 23 March 2004. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive....

The majority of the Authority did not uphold a complaint that a comment made by Mike Hosking during a ‘Mike’s Minute’ segment of Mike Hosking Breakfast about the government’s surplus breached the accuracy standard. The majority found that, considering a number of contextual factors, the statement was one of comment and political analysis, the type of which is common in news and current affairs broadcasts to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The minority view was that Mr Hosking’s comment was an inaccurate statement of fact on which he then based his opinion and that the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the statement on which the following comments were based. Not Upheld by Majority: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Breakfast Show – host joked “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour used to convey important message about men’s health to target audience – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki between 6am and 9am on Tuesday 14 June 2011, one of the hosts Dean stated, “Alright, so the call is going to go out this morning for a doctor for Men’s Health Week”, and his co-host Nick joked, “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse?...

Mary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and stood aside from this decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM Breakfast – host and caller used the term “poofter” – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comment did not contain sufficient invective to reach the threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Between 8am and 9am during the More FM Breakfast programme, broadcast on More FM on 21 May 2010, the hosts discussed how they would be participating in a winter pool jump. A female host said, “So you’ve got to grin and bear it, suck it up. Don’t be a wuss. ” A male host said he had been talking to his dad about it, because he had done a winter swim before....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – comments regarding the beheading of hostages in Iraq – allegedly breached good taste and decency FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter’s comments light-hearted look at serious issue – common practice in broadcast media – no intent to minimise gravity of subject matter – no obscene language or macabre detail employed – not in breach of good taste and decency standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At about 6. 53am on 22 September 2004 the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB (Paul Holmes) began a segment about the beheading of hostages in Iraq. At the time of the broadcast, British man Kenneth Bigley had been captured by terrorists in Iraq....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Hon Tariana Turia called a “confused bag of lard” by host – also accused of being a bully and “all mouth” – allegedly offensive, encouraged denigration, unbalanced and partialFindings Principle 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – comments not indecent – questionable taste – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – not applicable to editorial comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – editorial comment not required to be impartial – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments focused on individual, not group – not upheldObservation Broadcast comments raised issue of fairness, and broadcaster acknowledged probable unfairness. However, neither complainant raised the fairness standard either explicitly or implicitly in original complaints. Authority unable to assess a complaint on standard not raised in original complaints....