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 regarding comments made by the presenters of The Project about Taika Waititi and Chris Hemsworth. The presenters asked Kanoa Lloyd, who was at the Sydney premiere of Thor: Love and Thunder, about her experience interviewing the actors and ‘which one was hotter’ of the two. Lloyd said she embarrassed herself in front of the actors as she was talking about Hemsworth’s butt in the interview and that she preferred Hemsworth ‘just because I've seen the full Chris, and that's hotter to me’. The complainant considered the discussion was inappropriate ‘in our current #metoo society’. The Authority acknowledged societal issues surrounding sexual harassment and concerns regarding the normalisation of female-to-male sexual objectification. However, the comments in this instance did not go beyond audience expectations of The Project. They were not explicit or graphic, nor were the comments made with malice or nastiness and therefore they did not reach the high threshold justifying regulatory intervention and a corresponding restriction on the right to freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

The broadcast

[1]  The Project, broadcast on 27 June 2022, included a live-cross to presenter Kanoa Lloyd from the Sydney premiere of the movie Thor: Love and Thunder. Before giving her thoughts on the movie, the presenters asked Lloyd about her experience interviewing Taika Waititi and Chris Hemsworth, resulting in the following discussion:

Jeremy Corbett:  Be honest, did you embarrass yourself in front of those two hot guys?

Lloyd:  I mean, yes, of course I did. I, I talked to Chris Hemsworth about his bum. Like, of course I embarrassed myself in front of him.

Patrick Gower:  I mean, I've got one question. Which one was hotter?

Lloyd:  Why would you do me like that Paddy? How can I answer a question like that?

Gower:  Well, you know, you know I like Taika.

Lloyd:  I'm gonna have to say Chris, just because I've seen the full Chris, and that's hotter to me.

Amanda Gillies:  I do want to hear more about his butt Kanoa, but I do know you also saw the film earlier today. How was it?

Lloyd:  Yeah, there's actually a whole lot more to the movie than his behind. It's such a beautiful movie, genuinely. After I finished watching it, I was crying like I was on the streets of Sydney with tears in my eyes because it's so Māori, it's so silly. It's so lovely. It just makes you feel so incredibly proud to be a New Zealander and basically related to Taika Waititi.

The complaint

[2]  Brian Creedy complained the broadcast breached the good taste and decency standard of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice as the discussion around Hemsworth’s butt, and ‘who was the hottest star’ were ‘inappropriate in our current #me too society’. They also queried whether similar comments would have been appropriate if the comments were made by a male presenter about a female actor.

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Discovery did not uphold the complaint, finding the content was ‘typical of the informal commentary and banter that routinely features amongst the presenters on the programme.’ It was satisfied the broadcast ‘was unlikely to cause widespread offence and did not exceed the boundaries of either viewers' expectations of the programme or the Good Taste and Decency standard.’

The standard

[4]  The good taste and decency standard¹ states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme. The standard is intended to protect audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.²

Our analysis

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

[6]  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.³ On this occasion, the alleged harm is offence to the wider community as the complainant is concerned the comments undermine, or are otherwise inconsistent with the values of, the #MeToo movement, which is an international social movement against sexual violence and harassment.⁴

[7]  In a previous decision regarding comments made by female contestants on a reality television programme about a male landscaper, we noted:⁵

[9] At the outset, we acknowledge the importance of appropriate behaviour in the workplace and that [people of all genders] are entitled to respectful treatment. In this case, our role is to assess the comments complained about in the context of the broadcast as a whole. …

[10]  As stated above, we acknowledge the current climate and societal issues surrounding sexual harassment in the workplace. We also recognise the complainant’s concerns regarding the normalisation of female-to-male sexual objectification and understand some viewers may have found these comments to be offensive or inappropriate.

[8]  In determining whether the good taste and decency standard has been breached, we are mindful that attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in our diverse society. Caution is required when considering these matters, and the feelings of the particularly sensitive cannot be allowed to dictate what can be broadcast. However, there are limits, and the broad limit is that a broadcast must not seriously violate community norms of taste and decency.⁶

[9]  The context in which the content occurred and the wider context of the broadcast are relevant to assessing whether a programme has breached the good taste and decency standard.⁷ In this case we considered the following contextual factors as relevant to our decision:

• The Project is an unclassified news and current affairs programme (it is not required to carry a rating) and is targeted at an adult audience.⁸
• The Project’s presentation and style are both well-established. It includes a mixture of news and entertainment, and frequent comedy and banter among the hosts (some of whom are well-known comedians, including Jeremy Corbett).⁹
• Both female and male presenters mentioned the physical attributes of the male interviewees.
• The interviewees are both celebrities.
• The comments were delivered in a light-hearted tone and were intended to be humorous rather than offensive. They were not intended to be offensive, malicious or nasty.¹⁰
• The comments were not graphic or explicit.
• Lloyd went on to note ‘there's actually a whole lot more to the movie than his behind’ and praised the substance of the movie.

[10]  In light of the above context, and for similar reasons to our prior decision (acknowledging the comments and contexts of each were different) we do not consider the broadcast exceeded audience expectations of The Project. The comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and we do not consider they reached the high threshold justifying regulatory intervention and a corresponding restriction on the right to freedom of expression.

[11]  The complainant queried whether similar comments would have been appropriate if the comments were made by a male presenter about a female actor. We must decide the complaint based on the content and context of this broadcast, not a hypothetical scenario. In the wider context outlined at paragraphs [6] and [7], above, comments reflecting the objectification of a person could have the potential to cause harm by normalising the behaviour under the guise of humour.¹¹ This is particularly the case with male-to-female sexual objectification where such comments have the potential to embed gender inequality and long-standing prejudice towards women.¹²

[12]  The power dynamic is different in this case. The comments here were made by NZ presenters about a prominent international celebrity (and one who has chosen to appear semi-nude in a movie and appears to appreciate the attention).¹³ In the context, we consider the comments in the broadcast complained about were of a low level and unlikely to have the above effect of embedding long-standing prejudice. We do, however, encourage broadcasters to consider the broader effects of comments in this area.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 October 2022    

Appendix

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

1  Brian Creedy’s formal complaint – 10 July 2022

2  Discovery’s response to complaint – 2 August 2022

3  Creedy’s referral to the Authority – 22 August 2022

4  Discovery’s confirmation of no further comment – 29 August 2022

¹ Standard 1, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
³ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁴ See me too. “Vision & Theory of Change” <metoomvmt.org> and Me Too NZ “#MeToo – Stop sexual harassment in the workplace” <metoonz.co.nz>
⁵ Hendry and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-084 at [9] and [10]
⁶ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁷ Guideline 1a
⁸ Hibbs and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-074 at [11]
⁹ As above
¹⁰ For similar findings, see Mitchell and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-028 at [10], and Hendry and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-084 at [11]
¹¹ See, for example, Peter Lucas “Why the sexual objectification of men isn’t just a bit of fun” (18 September 2018) The Conversation <theconversation.com>
¹² See generally Jaimee Swift and Hannah Gould “Not An Object: On Sexualization and Exploitation of Women and Girls” (11 January 2021) Unicef USA <unicefusa.org> and the studies referred to; and Evangelina (Lina) Papadaki "Feminist Perspectives on Objectification" (2021) Spring The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For a similar application of this approach in the context of the discrimination and denigration standard, see Waxman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-042 at [12] and Cant and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No.2020-071 at [12].
¹³ Michael Christensen “Chris Hemsworth On Being Thor And Living In LA: “It’s Suffocating And You Stop Becoming A Person”” GQ (online ed, 4 October 2017) Where Hemsworth stated ‘And I remember Kenneth Branagh, for the first Thor audition, asked, “How do you feel about removing your shirt?” I was like, “I’ve been training for six months for this moment, I’ll be absolutely fine!”’