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 an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in?’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  During the 19 March 2024 broadcast of 1News, an item aired concerning comments by Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the New Zealand First Party Winston Peters referencing Nazi Germany.

[2]  The segment was introduced as follows:

It was a matter of who wasn't in the gun today for the coalition. New Zealand First MPs are causing headaches for the new government, as Winston Peters continues to battle against the media over coverage of his state of the nation speech, in which he referenced Nazi Germany.

[3]  The segment then contained the following relevant excerpt:

Benedict Collins: And today Mr Peters was sure in a mood.  

Peters:         I'm not listening to either of your crap.  

Collins:        Has the Prime Minister asking you to pull your head in, Mr. Peters?  

Peters:         You stop lying like you did on the news last night.  

Collins:        Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull you head in?

Peters:         You stop lying, mate.  

Collins:        Have you been asked to pull your head in Mr. Peters?

The complaint

[4]  Jim Cable complained that the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards for the following reasons:

• The reporter displayed ‘blatantly rude and disrespectful behaviour towards the Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters.’
• ‘In a very biased follow-up to Peters' accurate comparison of Nazi-like behaviour in Maori Party objectives, Collins shouted several times at Peters, "Did the PM tell you to pull your head in?’
• Considering Peters’ and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s relationship, he ‘simply could not have been so addressed by the Prime Minister. Collins should well have known’.
• ‘Collins’ behaviour towards Peters certainly was offensive and disturbing’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Offensive and Disturbing Content

• ‘1 News is an unclassified news programme that screens at a scheduled time each day and has an adult target audience.’
• ‘The story did not contain offensive language, violence, sexual material or other such content usually considered in relation to [the Offensive and Disturbing Content Standard].’
• ‘There was significant public interest in Mr Peters' Nazi Germany comment. It was reasonable for the senior political reporter to have attempted to obtain further comment from Mr Peters, particularly as it appeared Mr Peters' actions may have attracted censure from the Prime Minister.’
• ‘The reporter's questioning of Mr Peters was forthright but not abusive.’
• ‘Mr Peters declined to answer the reporter's question, so he repeated it.’
• ‘Mr Peters is a vastly experienced politician and capable interviewee who is very familiar with the media. The news media has an important role in scrutinising politicians and holding them to account for their words and deeds.’

Discrimination and Denigration

• The standard did not apply, as no specified section of the community was raised by the complainant.

The standards

[6]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard¹ is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.² The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

[7]  The discrimination and denigration standard³ 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.

Our analysis

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

[9]  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.⁴ There is high public importance in the media being able to question and hold public figures and politicians accountable, and this expression is valuable to a free and democratic society. Any harm caused by the broadcast should be weighed in this context.

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[10]   Context is crucial in determining complaints under the offensive and disturbing content standard.⁵ The following contextual factors are relevant:

• 1News is an unclassified news programme that screens at a scheduled time each day and has an adult target audience.
• News content is generally targeted at adults and it is expected any children watching will be supervised.⁶
• The audience expectations of news and current affairs programmes include robust questioning and commentary concerning public figures and politicians.⁷
• Winston Peters is an experienced politician, and is familiar and capable of dealing with the media.
• There was reasonably strong public interest in Peters’ Nazi Germany analogy and the consequent reaction of New Zealand First’s coalition partners.

[11]  We acknowledge that some members of the audience may have found the repeated questioning of Peters to be rude or disrespectful. However, the purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard is not to prohibit challenging or offensive material, but to regulate content that seriously violates community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offends or disturbs the audience, particularly in light of audience expectations of the programme.⁸

[12]  Politicians and public figures hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles and behaviour is encouraged and expected.⁹ We do not consider the questioning of Peters went outside the audience’s expectations of 1News, where such robust questioning of politicians is commonly featured.¹⁰ We also do not consider the questions would have caused widespread offence or distress, or that they seriously violated community standards of taste and decency.

[13]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint.

Discrimination and Denigration

[14]  This standard does not apply to protect individuals such as Peters. It protects ‘recognised sections of the community’, consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.¹¹ The complainant has not identified any recognised section of the community to which his concerns apply.

[15]  On this basis the standard does not apply.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
24 July 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Jim Cable's complaint to TVNZ - 19 March 2024

2  TVNZ's decision on the complaint - 17 April 2024

3  Cable's referral to the Authority - 7 May 2024

4  Cable confirming standards raised - 8 May 2024

5  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 10 May 2024

¹ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
³ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 1.1
⁶ Guideline 1.5
⁷ Note for example Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [19]
⁸ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ See for example: Stamilla and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-107 at [19]
¹⁰ See for example: Stamilla and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-107 at [19]; Robinson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-133 at [15]
¹¹ Guideline 4.1