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 that a story called “A Hāngī for my Birthday,” which was read out on Storytime on RNZ National, breached the children’s interests and offensive and disturbing content standards. The story was told from the perspective of a young child whose birthday was that day, and who helped his family prepare a hāngī for dinner. The complaint was that a part of the story where the family buy and kill hens to cook in the hāngī was unsuitable for children. The Authority acknowledged the story contained challenging themes on where meat comes from and that some of the descriptions, including the hens in cages, and being pulled out by the legs and stuffed in boxes, alluded to possible mistreatment of the animals. While acknowledging societal shifts in attitudes to animal welfare and ethical sourcing of food, ultimately the Authority found the story was unlikely to have ‘disproportionately disturbed’ or harmed a majority of children listening, noting the story was told in a calm and matter-of-fact way from a child’s perspective, was via audio rather than a visual depiction, and had educational value.

Not Upheld: Children’s Interests, Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  The 24 February 2024 broadcast of Storytime on RNZ National featured a story called “A Hāngī for my Birthday” which aired at approximately 6.20am.

[2]  The story was told from the perspective of a young child whose birthday is that day, and who helps his family to prepare a hāngī for dinner. The family goes to the beach to collect stones and driftwood for the hāngī, to a poultry farm to buy hens to cook, and prepares the hāngī back at their neighbours’ house.

[3]  The part of the story where the family buy and kill hens to cook in the hāngī was narrated as follows:

On the way home, we go to a poultry farm. They sell old hens. Uncle Jim gets some cartons out of the boot and we go into a shed that stinks. All along the sides and up and down the middle are cages with hens in. The man pulls them out by the legs and stuffs them into our boxes. They're squawking and trying to fly away. The stink's worse now. When we get home everyone has to help unload the trailer. Dad says he's going to kill the hens. I don't want to watch, but I'm not a wimp. He takes his axe and lays the hens on the chopping block. One big chop and their heads are off. They run around the lawn for a while and there's blood everywhere. I don't like eating hens, anyway. When they're all laid out on the grass, they look just like the chickens mum gets from the supermarket. I like that chicken. Uncle Jim gets another bucket of water and a sharp knife. He cuts every hen open and takes out their insides. Looks just like skinny sausages all joined together. In some of the hens is a real whole egg ready to be laid. Aunty Moira and Mum take all the hens inside.

The complaint

[4]  James Dickie complained that this part of the story breached the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards, on the basis it was unsuitable for the target audience of children. The following aspects in particular were of concern:

• Hens being pulled by their legs from stinking cages.
• Their heads being chopped off and then running about with blood spurting out.
• ‘When disembowelled, eggs were found in the viscera.’

[5]  Dickie stated:

• ‘I feel children should be made aware of life’s realities, but in this case probably an older age than your target audience and preferably at the parents’ discretion.’
• An advisory or warning would have been appropriate in this instance, to help parents and caregivers to protect children from viewing or listening to harmful content.
• While ‘an account such as this is relatively less traumatic than viewing the slaughter, nonetheless a skilled narrator can paint a vivid picture that could be disturbing to a young audience.’
• ‘Also unaddressed is whether the chickens could be considered to have been “badly treated”. If not, one must wonder what would constitute “bad treatment”.’

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint, as it was of the view the story was unlikely to have caused harm to a young audience warranting a warning. It stated:

• ‘While we agree that watching the slaughter of chickens may adversely affect children, hearing a fictional character talk about it in a children’s story is relatively less traumatic.’
• ‘In the context of A Hāngī for my Birthday, the collection, slaughter and preparation of chickens for cooking in an Umu is an integral part of the story and the character’s reaction (“I don’t want to watch, but I’m not a wimp”) is an example of his resilience.’

The standards

[7]  The children’s interests standard¹ requires broadcasters to ensure children can be protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. The purpose of this standard is to enable parents and caregivers to protect children from material that disproportionately disturbs them, is harmful, or is likely to impair their physical, mental or social development.²

[8]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard³ 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.⁴ 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.

Our analysis

[9]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[10]  Our starting point in considering any broadcasting standards complaint, is to recognise the important right to freedom of expression – which includes both the broadcaster’s right to present a broad range of material, and the audience’s right to receive that content. It is our role to weigh the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where there is harm at a level that justifies placing a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.⁵

Children’s Interests

[11]  In a radio context, the children’s interests standard requires broadcasters to ensure children can be protected from relevant content during children’s normally accepted listening times – usually up until 8.30pm (especially before school and after school), and on weekends and public holidays.

[12]  Material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent or sexual content or themes, offensive language, social or domestic friction and content in which children or animals are humiliated or badly treated where such material is outside the expectations of the programme’s classification.⁶

[13]  Context is an important consideration when assessing complaints under this standard, including, where relevant, any audience advisory, the time of broadcast, the target and likely audience, audience expectations, the public interest in the broadcast and any factors that mitigate the likely harm to children, such as humour or educational benefit. The following contextual factors are relevant in this case:

• Storytime is described as featuring ‘New Zealand audio books, stories and music for kids of all ages’⁷ and is broadcast on Saturday and Sunday mornings from 6 - 7am.
• The long-running programme has a well-established audience understanding of what it is and its target audience – usually the under-12 age group. The programme has been seen as one where parents could safely leave young children to listen early on weekend mornings.⁸
• ‘A Hāngī for my Birthday’ aired at approximately 6.20am on a Saturday; within children’s normally accepted listening times.
• No audience advisory or warning was broadcast before the story.
• The story was approximately six and a half minutes long, and the part relating to hens was approximately one and a half minutes long.
• Storytime carries significant educational value for children, exposing them to a range of New Zealand stories, and encouraging development of oral language, comprehension and creativity.

[14]  The key question for us is whether, in the above context, the story was likely to disproportionately disturb or harm children, who were the target audience for the programme.

[15]  We acknowledge this story contained challenging themes in relation to where meat comes from, and that some younger children listening may not yet have been familiar with these realities. We also acknowledge some of the descriptions, including the hens in cages, and being pulled out by the legs and stuffed in boxes, alluded to possible mistreatment of the animals. There have been definite shifts in community attitudes regarding animal welfare and ethical food sourcing in recent years, and more parents are wishing to teach their children the value of eating food which is ethically sourced. As a regulatory body tasked with reflecting evolving community standards and values, we must take these shifts into account.

[16]  Further, research we undertook with NZ On Air | Irirangi Te Motu into Children’s Media Use in 2020 identified animal harm or torture as one of the most common types of visual content that children found upsetting.⁹ ‘Dead animals,’ ‘blood and gore,’ and ‘hunting animals’ also rated fairly highly.¹⁰

[17]  In the circumstances, this decision has been a challenging one for us. The content (particularly where suggestive of animal mistreatment) risked upsetting children. With no warning to signal the presence of this content, parents and caregivers may have left children alone to listen to it or, if present, may have been caught off guard, unprepared to turn the programme off or explain it in a way appropriate for children in their care.

[18]  Ultimately however, we came to the conclusion that while some children may have found the content distressing, it was unlikely to have ‘disproportionately disturbed’ or harmed a majority of children listening, noting the following points in particular:

• The story, including the part about the hens, was told in a calm and matter-of-fact way from a child’s perspective, in the context of recounting his birthday activities and preparing for a hāngī. The child narrator is not distressed by the situation in a way which might encourage alarm amongst children listening (‘I don't want to watch, but I'm not a wimp’).
• While the Code of Broadcasting Standards and research into children’s media use indicates that harm to animals is something which children are particularly affected by, the Code also recognises that violence has more impact when depicted visually.¹¹ The descriptions of the hens being purchased and prepared for the hāngī were recounted via audio, rather than visual depictions. We agree with the complainant that ‘a skilled narrator can paint a vivid picture’ but in this case, taking into account the way in which the story was narrated, we do not consider the audio descriptions would have had as strong of an impact as a visual depiction of the same scenario.
• The story reflected the reality that animals are killed for food. There is an educational aspect to the descriptions in showing children where meat comes from and how it is prepared. The child narrator says ‘When they're all laid out on the grass, they look just like the chickens mum gets from the supermarket,’ which demonstrates to children how ready-packaged chicken from the supermarket originates. It is also educational that ‘In some of the hens is a real whole egg ready to be laid’.¹²
• As noted at para [13] there was significant value in the broadcast as a form of educational and creative expression.

[19]  While we acknowledge the complainant’s views, as well as societal shifts in attitudes to animal welfare and ethical sourcing of food, in light of the above factors we do not consider the potential harm reaches a level justifying restricting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

[20]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the children’s interests standard.

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[21]  The offensive and disturbing content standard prohibits broadcast content that is likely to seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. It is related to the children’s interests standard, which takes into account the same contextual factors. However, the focus of the children’s interests standard is on harm that may be unique to children; content that could be considered harmful to children may not be harmful or unexpected when considering the audience in general.¹³ 

[22]  Given the target audience of Storytime is specifically children (rather than a broader audience), we similarly find the audience was unlikely to be disproportionately offended or disturbed by the programme.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
16 July 2024    

Appendix

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

1  James Dickie’s formal complaint to RNZ – 4 March 2024

2  RNZ’s response to complaint – 27 March 2024

3  Dickie’s referral to the Authority – 9 April 2024

4  RNZ’s further comments – 22 May 2024

¹ Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
³ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁴ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 2.2
⁷ RNZ “Storytime”
⁸ Campbell and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-091 at [8]
⁹ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho and NZ On Air | Irirangi Te Motu Children’s Media Use (June 2020) at pages 7, 85 and 90
¹⁰ At pages 90 and 91.
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹² While not exactly the same scenario, previous Authority decisions concerning broadcasts dealing with hunting raise similar issues. In these situations, we have acknowledged that hunting is a reality of life in New Zealand, and that footage of hunting is generally acceptable provided it does not depict undue cruelty. See for example: Alexander and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-076; Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-108; Andersson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2016-043; Alexander and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-080
¹³ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10