BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard. Destiny Church and Family First were also treated fairly: the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for public figures, and both organisations were invited to respond - which Family First did, and their comments were read out on-air.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness.

The broadcast

[1]  The 11 July 2024 broadcast of Seven Sharp included a segment about cancellations of drag storytime events for children in Rotorua, Hastings, and Upper Hutt. The presenter introduced the segment by saying the events were cancelled ‘because of a nasty backlash online from what’s best described as Christian fundamentalists’. The item centred on an interview with Hannah, who was due to partake in the Upper Hutt storytime event in her drag king persona, Willy Smack’n’Tush.

[2]  During a voiceover, the reporter said:

While most of Willy's performing is on stage to adults, once in a while, there'll be a request for storytime events for children. The Upper Hutt Library had one planned late last month. For six weeks, they promoted it without issue, until it was shared by Family First and then Destiny Church, who posted it to their followers. Then came the inevitable pile on. There was vitriol and threats of violence. Brian Tamaki even suggested drag ought to be banned like gang patches from public spaces. All over a woman, dressed as a man, reading stories to children. Upper Hutt Mayor Wayne Guppy says they were made aware of a protest planned for the storytime event at the library and made the difficult decision to cancel. He says they were worried about the effects on the children of a hostile protest and how it might make them feel about future library events.

[3]  The reporter asked Hannah how she felt when Upper Hutt Council decided to cancel the event. Hannah responded:

Unfortunately, in the few days leading up to the event, they had unlawful protesting happening outside their library. They had physical threats made to their staff, and Upper Hutt Library in particular is fully glass fronted and there is no privacy for people inside to outside. And the fear of glass being smashed and children being caught in the firing line of violence is… yeah, I totally understand why that was unsafe at that point to go ahead. But, yeah, heartbreaking and something that I do not want to see happen again. 

[4]   Netsafe representative was also interviewed. The representative described Destiny Church and Family First’s online activity in the following way:

Well, effectively, this is what people call either mass harassment or brigading: where you look for, recruit people to, say things to build a head of steam, if you like. To say that this isn’t what ‘we’ want, and you’re representing yourself and others as a significant section of society. And, as result, you’re using some weight in that voice to say that we don’t want this to happen.

[5]  The reporter then asked whether most brigading is done by ‘a very small group of people who’ve actually just wound-up other people who may or may not really feel this way’, to which the Netsafe representative said:

Yeah. Well, I mean, often what we see in lots of different examples of this, you'll find a community that exists online that might be around something quite innocuous, that people contributed [to], or people have a strong opinion, and then often those opinions can be kind of shaped and moved from one place to another. So, you might have started with a group that has one intent, and now you start to get voices representing a much bigger group. And that can be really problematic if the people that are in there are expressing opinions, or people expressing things on behalf of a group, where not everybody in that group necessarily feels that way.

[6]  Later in the broadcast, when asked what she would say to the protesters if she had the chance, Hannah said:

That queer people exist. Rainbow people exist. We have families. We have children. We have jobs and lives. And pride is not an attack on other people… Pride is… pride in our identities and our communities. And we deserve and have the legal right to exist in public spaces... This event is a voluntary event… Rainbow families and ally families could choose to bring their tamariki to this event… I also think there's a lot of people who really just don't understand what queer people are and how we live and what our lives are like. And I hope, I really hope that some of those people watch the video and are made aware of what the actual reality of what a drag storytime is.

[7]  Hannah was then asked whether she hopes ‘Willy’ has the chance to participate in a drag storytime event again, to which she said:

Absolutely. It's so fun. Sitting down on the carpet in a library and reading to kids is… so fun. And we can't let them win. We can't let bigoted, hateful views stop us from being able to celebrate our communities. 

[8]  At the end of the item, the reporter gave a statement:

Family First says they inform their followers because of what they call an agenda by the drag community. They urge parents to communicate their concerns to libraries and said if parents still wanted to take their children, it was their choice. We also approached Destiny Church for comment, but they failed to get back to us.

The complaint

[9]  Robin Boom complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, fairness, and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

Discrimination and denigration

• The segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians and Christian values. The hosts made disparaging remarks against fundamentalist Christians, and the broadcast highlighted TVNZ’s hostility towards Christians ‘who were opposed to the promotion of the [LGBTQIA+] agenda’.
• The segment discriminated against others who discourage ‘the promotion of [LGBTQIA+] lifestyles’ or hold ‘more conservative values’, including those from other religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism.
• Most Christians in Aotearoa New Zealand are theologically conservative. The hosts’ discriminatory comments about ‘fundamentalist Christians’ therefore discriminated against ‘the majority of [New Zealand’s] church attending Christians’.
• Similarly to Christianity, theologically liberal branches of Judaism are vastly outnumbered by Orthodox Jews (whereby the Old Testament condemns ‘homosexual activity’), and most Muslims ‘do not condone homosexual activity’.
• Throughout the interview, there was a cushion in the background which was emblazoned with ‘don’t be a dick’ in rainbow writing. This promoted an ‘anti-male’ ideology.
• Because the ‘don’t be a dick’ cushion was ‘in a lesbian household belonging to a [LGBTQIA+] “activist”’, it was an ‘anti-male slogan’ and did not mean ‘don’t be a jerk’.

Balance

• The interview was ‘presented as pro Drag-King’ while trying to demonise fundamentalist Christians and those who hold ‘more conservative values and are prepared to speak out against the sexualisation of children’.
• While Destiny Church did not respond to the broadcaster’s request for comment, other organisations could have been interviewed ‘to give a counter to what this programme was promoting’. Similarly, it was unbalanced for the item to include ‘just a sentence on what Family First thought, and no interview’.

Fairness

• The segment lacked fairness towards Family First, Destiny Church, and ‘anyone who holds traditional family values’.
• Family First and Destiny Church were notified about the broadcast six  hours before it aired and were not given a preview of what it contained, nor were they invited to be interviewed. Family First, who responded to the request for comment, therefore could not give an informed and thorough response to the broadcast, which was ‘hardly fair’.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Discrimination and denigration

• When the presenter said the rainbow storytime events were cancelled because of backlash from ‘what’s best described as Christian fundamentalists’, they were not making a statement about all Christians. ‘Not all Christians are opposed to the rainbow community, and it is an incorrect assumption to state they are.’
• The segment contained factual information and comment, analysis, or opinion, which the standard is not intended to prevent.
• Further, no material in the programme expressed a high level of condemnation of any group of people. The criticism in the broadcast was directed towards the actions of two religious organisations, not towards a recognised section of the community.
• ‘”Don’t be a dick” has the commonly known colloquial meaning of ‘don’t be a jerk’, and this is not inappropriate in the context of Seven Sharp.
• It is incorrect that many major religions are opposed to the LGBTQIA+ community. Many Christian groups and denominations in Aotearoa New Zealand support the rainbow community.

Balance

• Threatening behaviour of protesters regarding rainbow storytime events at the Upper Hutt library constitutes a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.
• Significant viewpoints were adequately represented in the segment due to comments from Hannah, Upper Hutt Mayor Wayne Guppy, a Netsafe representative, and comment from Family First. Destiny Church declined to comment.
• Because the issue had extensive media coverage, it is reasonable to expect viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints.

Fairness

• The threshold for finding a breach of this standard in relation to politicians and public figures is higher than for someone unfamiliar with the media.
• Both Family First and Destiny Church were offered the opportunity to comment on the issues raised in the story. Family First provided a statement, which was included at the end of the story. The fairness standard does not require they be interviewed.

The standards

[11]  The discrimination and denigration standard¹ protects against broadcasts which encourage the discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[12]  The balance standard² ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁴

[13]  The fairness standard⁵ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁶ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and are protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[14]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[15]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁷

Discrimination and Denigration

[16]  The standard only applies to recognised sections of the community.

[17]  Both people of Christian faith and men constitute such sections for the purposes of this standard. The standard does not apply to broad non-homogenous groups such as ‘anyone who holds traditional family values’ and those who are ‘opposed to the promotion of the [LGBTQIA+] agenda’.⁸

Men

[18]  As explained by the broadcaster in their decision, ‘don’t be a dick’ is a well-known phrase analogous to ‘don’t be a jerk’. ‘Dick’ did not appear in the top 31 most offensive words in the Authority’s 2022 Language that May Offend in Broadcasting survey.⁹ It appeared in previous surveys but was removed in 2021.¹⁰

[19]  Men are a recognised section of the community for the purposes of the standard. However, in the context of the interview, we do not agree ‘don’t be a dick’ could reasonably be interpreted as being a comment about men generally, nor as encouraging discrimination against men.¹¹ 

Christians

[20]  The complainant suggested the broadcast demonised and included disparaging remarks against Christians – specifically, ‘fundamentalist (Bible believing) Christians’. The complainant noted the presenter’s comment about the events being cancelled ‘because of a nasty backlash online from what’s best described as Christian fundamentalists’.

[21]  We do not consider there was a high level of condemnation in the presenter’s comment. It did not contain malice or nastiness, nor did it reinforce or embed negative stereotypes about Christians.¹² 

[22]  We also did not identify anything else in the broadcast that was critical of Christians (as opposed to particular views or organisations). The broadcast contained factual material and criticism about the actions and views of two organisations.¹³ Comments will not breach the standard simply because they criticise a particular group, nor is the standard intended to prevent the broadcast of factual material. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Balance

[23]  Seven Sharp is a news, current affairs, and factual programme for the purposes of this standard, and cancellation of drag storytime events due to threats from protesters is a controversial issue of public importance that was discussed in the segment. The balance standard therefore applies.

[24]  In determining whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant perspectives on the issue, we note the standard does not require equal time be given to each significant viewpoint – only that broadcasters give a ‘fair voice’ to differing views.¹⁴ Balance is not achieved by a stopwatch.

[25]  We consider significant points of view were adequately represented. The item included various perspectives, including from Hannah, Upper Hutt Mayor Wayne Guppy, a Netsafe representative, as well as Destiny Church and Family First.¹⁵ The segment included images of social media posts made by Destiny Church and Family First, comments of support in response to the posts, and a statement from Family First in response to the item. Destiny Church was given an opportunity to comment but did not respond to the broadcaster’s request. To meet their obligations under this standard, the broadcaster did not need to interview Destiny Church, Family First, or any other person or organisation.

[26]  Freedom of expression and editorial discretion entitles broadcasters to present matters from a particular perspective or with a particular lens.¹⁶ Through its introduction and presentation, the broadcast clearly signalled it was approaching the issue from a particular perspective, thereby reducing the requirement to present significant points of view.¹⁷

[27]  While the broadcast clearly alerted viewers to alternative perspectives on the issue, the audience could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage, particularly given the relevant issue garnered extensive media coverage.¹⁸

[28]  In light of the above factors, we do not consider the broadcast breached the balance standard.

Fairness

[29]  The complainant alleged Family First, Destiny Church, and ‘anyone who holds traditional family values’ were treated unfairly. The standard only applies to individuals and organisations. We are not able to consider the complaint in relation to the broad group of ‘anyone who holds traditional family values’ but address the position of Family First and Destiny Church below.

[30]  If a person or organisation referred to or portrayed in a broadcast may be adversely affected, that person or organisation should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment on the programme, before the broadcast. What is ‘fair and reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances.¹⁹

[31]  It is well established that the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for public figures who can expect and would be used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage. It is also commonplace for public figures to be criticised without giving rise to an expectation of participation in every broadcast.²⁰

[32]  We consider Destiny Church and Family First were given fair and reasonable opportunity to comment. They were invited to respond to the broadcast, which Family First did, and Family First’s comments were read out on air. Family First and Destiny Church are familiar with media attention focused on their outspoken  views on drag storytime events for children.²¹ Both organisations called for the cancellation of the Rotorua, Hastings, and Upper Hutt events, and this pressure was cited in the broadcast and by other media outlets as the reason why the events were cancelled.

[33]  The complainant also suggested it was unfair that Family First and Destiny Church were not invited to an interview. However, the fairness standard does not require a person or organisation referred to or portrayed in a broadcast to be interviewed.

[34]  We therefore do not find a breach of this standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
20 November 2024    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Robin Boom’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 18 July 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 12 August 2024

3  Boom’s referral to the Authority – 2 September 2024

4  TVNZ’s further comments – 6 September 2024

5  Boom’s further comments – 10 September 2024

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 13 September 2024

¹ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Guideline 5.1
⁵ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz>
⁹ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may offend in broadcasting (17 February 2022) at 6
¹⁰ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may offend in broadcasting (17 February 2022) at 6
¹¹ For a similar finding, see, for example, Humphries and Television New Zealand Ltd Decision No. 2024-059 at paras [19] – [21]
¹² Guideline 4.2
¹³ Guideline 4.2
¹⁴ Guideline 5.3 and see, for example, Carter and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-113 at [16]
¹⁵ See, for example, Kane and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-012 at [24]
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15; See, for example, Kane and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-012 at [27]
¹⁷ Guideline 5.4
¹⁸ Guideline 5.4; See, for example, Anna Whyte “Labour MP contacting police minister over Upper Hutt drag storytime cancellation” The Post (online ed, 26 June 2024); Azaria Howell “Upper Hutt drag king storytime cancelled after ‘threats’ and opposition from Destiny Church” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 25 June 2024); Caroline Williams “Rainbow Storytime tour cancelled after drag queens sent death threats” Stuff (online ed, April 26 2024); “Nicola Willis claps back at 'jealous' Brian Tamaki after attack on 'rainbow spending'” Newshub (online ed, 26 June 2024); Laura Smith “Rotorua cancels drag queens’ Rainbow Storytime for kids over ‘safety concerns’” RNZ (online ed, 20 March 2024); Alex Casey “Revealed: The shocking drag storytime event Brian Tamaki didn’t want you to see” The Spinoff (online ed, 27 June 2024); “Rainbow Storytime organisers say cancelling will embolden protests” 1News (27 March 2024); Melania Watson “Hastings Library Rainbow Storytime event cancelled over disinformation, public safety concerns” Newshub (online ed, 26 March 2024)
¹⁹ Guideline 8.4
²⁰ See, for example, Spring and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-079 at [18]
²¹ See, for example, Spring and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-079 at [20]