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 replay of a broadcast of Brad and Laura on The Hits breached the promotion of illegal or serious antisocial behaviour standard by presenting the action of running over ‘carpark savers’ as humorous. The show discussed the issue of people standing in carparks to save them for other people, and featured interaction with listeners in response to this, which included the suggestion of running over people saving carparks. Overall the Authority did not consider the likely impact of this programme would be to encourage the audience to actually run over ‘carpark savers.’ The audience would have understood the hosts’ reaction of giving a caller who made this suggestion a prize was merely an appreciative response to their joke, which was clearly hyperbole and intended to be humorous.

Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

The broadcast

[1]  During a replay of a broadcast of Brad and Laura on 5 March 2023 on The Hits, the hosts Brad Watson and Laura McGoldrick discussed a recent incident where a person walked onto a carpark at Auckland Zoo to save the park for a family member, when a queue of cars had been waiting for parks. The discussion was a part of their ‘Hits Jury’ segment where the hosts discuss an issue, then engage with listeners on their verdict.

[2]  The hosts made the following comments during the introduction to the segment:

Brad:               The text messages coming through for our Hits Jury. We're talking about, can you stand in a car park and hold it for somebody while there are other cars lining up? Oh, I reckon that's filthy behaviour.

Laura:             That is inappropriate as an adult.

Brad:               It's a big no. Someone says ‘oh I had someone doing that once. Once they got into the park, I used my 4x4 to push the car through onto the footpath and they got towed.’

Laura:             That’s so funny.

Brad:               Yes. Go you.

Laura:             Geez, you have to do that strategically, you don’t want to leave a dent.

Brad:               No. Someone says, ‘Nope, just nope.’ Someone ‘didn't know this was a thing until today’, someone says ‘I'll be running them down.’ It's just dirty, isn't it?

Laura:             It's just unacceptable behaviour.

[3]  The hosts then had this exchange with a ‘jury member’ who called in to the programme:

Brad:               [Caller]’s on the phone. He's a jury member. What do you reckon, [caller]?

Caller:             No, I reckon. No, don't do it. It's just the entitled generation and what you should have done was just park in there and run them over.

Brad:               [Laughing] Just put it in drive, drive forward, [laughing] dadunk dadunk.

Caller:             Well a person is not classed as a vehicle, so the car park is for vehicles only.

Brad:               The cheek of this guy too, the stick he was giving back to the car. God it was getting heated. You're a good person [caller]. Shall we give him the pizza there Laura?

Laura:             Yeah, go on [caller].

Brad:              We’ll shout you dinner [caller].

Caller:             Ok, sweet cheers.

Laura:             Don't run me over, though, [caller]! Don't run me over!

Caller:             Don't stand in car parks and I won’t.

Laura:             Promise I won’t, except at the zoo.

Brad:               …The texts are all saying the same. Someone says ‘I’ll be running them down as well.’ So, yeah, bit of rage coming out of here.

Laura:             And I think rightly so. It is a dick move.

Brad:              Yeah total dick move. So don’t do that please. There we go, the jury’s spoken.

The complaint

[4]  Simon Gaier complained the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis the hosts ‘gave away the prize for the best comment to a listener who suggests to “run them over”. I don't agree with people blocking off parks. But even more so, I don't agree with radio hosts promoting people running each other over.’

[5]  On referral to the Authority, Gaier added:

• ‘I disagree with [the broadcaster’s] argument that the audience is unlikely to take the statements made as a serious encouragement. Both hosts decided to reward the caller with the prize for the best answer – to “run them over”. This is a clear endorsement to me.’
• ‘Despite the tone of the conversation, the hosts failed to clearly condemn the idea of running people over that are “saving” car parks. Instead, they decided to award the caller with a voucher for the best answer. How can the NZME be so certain that this is not taken as endorsement?’
• ‘Also, the hosts missed the opportunity to promote a more constructive way of handling the situation’

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  While acknowledging the ‘exchange can be seen as distasteful’, NZME Radio Ltd did not uphold the complaint, noting it did not ‘consider the statement crossed the threshold to encourage people to actually run over people in car parks. This is because the statements are unlikely to be taken by the audience as a serious encouragement to do so, given the tone of the hosts and caller, and laughter accompanying the broadcast.’

[7]  On referral to the Authority, NZME added:

• ‘We note the recent decision of Black and Discovery NZ Ltd - 2021-162 (26 April 2022),¹ a breach of the law and order standard was found following the broadcasting of a video of a child performing a hongi with an electric fence. This was not a dramatic portrayal but an actual video of a child put in a position where he could be harmed at the encouragement of his mother, who filmed it, and the portrayal of this on The Project was accompanied by adults laughing. This contrasts the hypothetical situation discussed in the Hits broadcast, which was clearly tongue in cheek.’
• ‘Similarly, in the decision Singh and Radio Virsa - 2019-081 (27 May 2020),² the host advocated actual violence against a specific person.’
• ‘In the present case, the hosts light heartedly dealt with the caller. This is evident from the tone and laughing. We do not consider that the caller’s opinion on people “saving” a park by running them over, and the subsequent comments by the host, are likely to be taken by the Hits’ audience as serious endorsement of such harm.’
• ‘We are confident our listeners do not need to be explicitly reminded that it is not acceptable to run a fellow human being over in a car and that as such, “clear condemnation” was not required, particularly in light of the tone of the hosts and the caller. Further, the Commentary to this standard recognises that “This standard does not stop broadcasters from discussing or depicting criminal behaviour or other law-breaking, even if they do not explicitly condemn it.”’

The standard

[8]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard³ is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.⁴ Context, and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control, are crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.⁵

Our analysis

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

[10]  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.⁶

[11]  This standard is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine, or promote disobedience of the law or legal processes. Direct incitement to break the law is likely to breach this standard, if there is a real likelihood the audience will act on it. Broadcasts which condone criminal activity or present it as positive or humorous may have this effect.⁷

[12]  Context is crucial in the determination of a complaint under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behavior standard. In determining whether the broadcast promoted running ‘carpark savers’ over, we have considered the following contextual factors:

• Brad and Laura is a programme that is broadcast live from 3-7pm on weekdays, however this broadcast was a replay that occurred at approximately 9am on a Sunday. The Hits target audience is ‘smart, busy women aged 30-49’ who ‘listen to feel happy, connect with like‑minded people, laugh and have a good sing-a-long’.⁸
• The comments were made during a light-hearted ‘The Hits Jury’ segment that discussed people “stand[ing] in a carpark and hold[ing] it for somebody while there are other cars lining up”, in light of a recent similar incident at Auckland Zoo. This behaviour has featured in the media in recent years,⁹ and previous media coverage of this issue has warned of the risk of violent confrontations in these situations.¹⁰
• The suggestion of running over people who are saving carparks was mentioned in audience text feedback, then during comments with the ‘jury member’ caller, then again with others saying this in text feedback at the end of the segment.
• The tone of the segment was light-hearted, with laughter from the hosts throughout, particularly in relation to the call with the ‘jury member’ and their suggestion of running people over.
• The ‘jury member’ was given the prize of a pizza for his call, and was called a ‘good person’.
• Laura had a tongue-in-cheek exchange with the ‘jury member’ after awarding them the prize, saying ‘Don’t run me over though [caller]! Don’t run me over!’
• The hosts did not call for anyone else to act in any way.

[13]  While we acknowledge the complainant’s concerns, in the context we do not believe the likely impact of the hosts’ reaction to the caller’s comments would be to encourage the audience to actually run over ‘carpark savers’.

[14]  While illegal or serious antisocial behaviour can be promoted to audiences by presenting it as humorous,¹¹ this was not the likely impact of this particular broadcast. In our view, the likely audience understanding of the segment and the hosts’ reaction to the comments would be that the thought of running people over who save carparks was so outrageous, the mere suggestion was humorous. The hosts emphasised this outrageous nature by the tone of their response and making sound effects such as ‘dadunk, dadunk’. It was also emphasised through Laura’s joking plea to the caller not to run her over.

[15]  We do not consider reasonable listeners would have interpreted the hosts awarding the ‘jury member’ with a prize for the best answer as endorsement of ‘carpark savers’ being run over. It would be widely understood that this was merely an appreciative response to the caller’s joke, which was clearly hyperbole and intended to be humorous. There was no suggestion or implication by the hosts that running ‘carpark savers’ over was acceptable or encouraged.

[16]  This can be contrasted with the Authority’s decision in Black where actual footage of serious antisocial behaviour was presented as humorous and the participants praised, rather than a hypothetical situation as in this programme.¹²

[17]  Accordingly, we do not consider this broadcast encouraged listeners to break the law, or was otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity in breach of the standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
26 July 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Simon Gaier’s formal complaint to NZME – 5 March 2023

2  NZME’s decision on the complaint – 26 April 2023

3  Gaier’s referral to the Authority and supporting information – 4 May 2023

4  NZME’s comments on referral – 26 May 2023

5  Gaier's further comments – 11 June 2023

6  NZME’s final comments – 4 July 2023

7  Gaier’s confirmation of no further comment – 6 July 2023

¹ Black and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-162
² Singh and Radio Virsa, Decision No. 2019-081
³ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 11
⁵ Guideline 3.1
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 4
⁷ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 11; see also Black and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-162 at [14] and [16]
⁸ “The Hits” The Radio Bureau (accessed 25 June 2023) <trb.co.nz>
⁹ “Paddy Gower Has Issues: Is it okay to bags a car park by standing in it?” Newshub (online ed, 7 June 2023); “Startling video shows woman, child standing in Auckland car park to 'reserve' it, so driver can't pull in” 1 News (online ed, 24 September 2018); “How far would you go to 'save' a car park? AT's tip after US woman's 'I was here first' standoff” NZ Herald (online ed, 14 March 2018)
¹⁰ “Startling video shows woman, child standing in Auckland car park to 'reserve' it, so driver can't pull in” 1 News (online ed, 24 September 2018) see comments from Auckland Transport's Regional Compliance Manager Rick Bidgood in 2018 ‘Mr Bidgood urged drivers to consider giving up and finding another park in these scenarios, where the alternative could be an aggressive or even violent confrontation.’
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 11
¹² Black and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-162 at [16]