BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

Following an interview with Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, Mike Hosking, on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show, replayed the interview and commented on the length of a pause during the interview. In doing so, Hosking questioned whether it was a ‘pause or a gabble’ and included sound effects of trucks passing and a turkey gobbling to ‘measure’ the pause. The complainants allege this second segment breached five standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it belittled the Associate Health Minister. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards and was not unfair to the Associate Health Minister. The remaining standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  In a segment of the Mike Hosking Breakfast show on 30 August 2021, Mike Hosking interviewed the Associate Health Minister, Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, on the Government’s progress in containing the Delta COVID-19 outbreak and its plans for vaccination rollouts.

[2]  Hosking asked Dr Verrall whether she thought the outbreak was being contained:

Hosking:            Are you confident you're getting this encircled?

Dr Verrall:          [pause] I think we're, I think we're starting to see some positive signs.

[3]  Later in the programme, Hosking came back to this interview (the “second segment”) and noted:

Hosking:            I'm not sure did we have a pause or a gabble. We're having a pause or a gabble.

[4]              The previous interview excerpt was then replayed in this second segment. The clip was then replayed two further times, with sound effects included in each replay (making a total of three replays, with increasing sound effects on each replay):

Hosking:            Are you confident you're getting this encircled?

Dr Verrall:          [pause] I think we're, I think we're starting to see some positive signs.

Hosking:            [overlapping with above] Oh, jeepers

Hosking:            Most definitely a pause. And I think there's probably also a gabble.

Hosking:            Are you confident you're getting this encircled?

[truck passing sound] [turkey gobbling sound]

Dr Verrall:          I think we're, I think we're starting to see some positive signs.

Hosking:            We don't have time to do it, actually we do have time to do it, I think it's a two trucker. I think it's a two trucker plus gabble.

Hosking:            Are you confident you're getting this encircled?

[two trucks passing sound] [turkey gobbling sound]

Dr Verrall:          I think we're, I think we're starting to see some positive signs.

Hosking:            It is a pause of inner turmoil and a gabble of indecision from the Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall…

The complaints

[5]  Anthony Grant complained the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice:

• Hosking belittled Dr Verrall’s answers and made ‘childish [truck] driving noises asking his listen[ers] is it a "gabble" etc’. His actions were ‘disrespectful and childish’.
• Hosking took ‘delight in "putting down" someone who was obviously trying to do her best to answer his questions’.

[6]  Ian Findlay complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards for reasons including:

• The interview was not ‘balanced’.
• ‘The host did not employ the sound of a clock-ticking to emphasize the pauses. He chose a farm animal, commonly used to refer to someone who is incompetent or idiotic. It was a deliberate attempt on the [host’s] part to personally ridicule [Dr Verrall], not the length of pause at the commencement of her answers….’
• Using ‘connotative turkey noises in Dr Verrall's absence goes well beyond [challenging] “in a forthright manner”. It was played after Dr Verrall had left the studio, therefore does not directly challenge her. It challenges her pauses in her absence. A pause is not content and cannot be accurately challenged’.
• ‘It is misleading to indicate a considered and measured response to a question with noises from an animal, often used colloquially to show stupidity… They have a strong negative connotation which misleads the listener away from hesitancy to stupidity.’
• Although Dr Verrall has appeared regularly on the show, she ‘would not have expected upon leaving the studio, that the host would time her pauses by comparing them to a farm animal. This is not fair. The broadcaster has not “dealt fairly” as required in Standard 11’.
• ‘The host went further than criticizing the Dr for having pre-prepared answers. By implication, he ridiculed all her answers. This is unfair, and contravenes Standard 11.’
• ‘Hosking attacked this hesitancy as a personal weakness, rather than a government representative considering her responses to ensure an accurate reply.’

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  NZME Radio Ltd (NZME) did not uphold the complaints. For each standard, NZME noted:

Good taste and decency

• Newstalk ZB is an adult targeted radio station for 30-64 year olds.
• ‘[N]either the interview or the ensuing segment contained any coarse or offensive language.’
• ‘[W]hile we recognise that it may be viewed as distasteful by some listeners, it does not reach the high threshold required to breach this standard.’

Discrimination and denigration

• The discrimination and denigration standard ‘applies to recognised “sections of the community” protected under the Human Rights Act, rather than to the treatment of particular individuals such as Dr Verrall’.

Balance

• The standard only applies to ‘controversial issues of public importance’ discussed in news and current affairs programmes.

Accuracy

• The ‘standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. Regular listeners would understand the established format of the host’s interviews with members of the Government such as Dr Verrall and would expect Dr Verrall to be challenged in a forthright manner on topical issues within this segment.’
• ‘In any event, the statements of the host here cannot be viewed as “misleading” within the meaning of the standard.’

Fairness

• Hosking ‘criticised Dr Verrall, in her capacity as a Government Minister, for not responding in a convincing fashion to some of the questions posed, and for what the host perceived as the Minister only giving pre-prepared answers to relevant questions, and not being able or willing to diverge from those answers’.
• ‘At this critical time, as New Zealand faces its first Delta outbreak and a lengthy lockdown, the media has an important role to play in casting a critical eye on the Government’s decisions and performance and to hold both Government Ministers and by extension, the Government to account. Associate Minister Verrall, as an experienced politician and public figure, would expect no less.’

The standards

[8]  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 Context and audience expectations are crucial and a broadcast’s context may justify the inclusion of distasteful material.³

[9]  The fairness standard⁴ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁵ It ensures individuals and organisations are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

[10]  We consider the good taste and decency and fairness standards are the standards of most relevance to the complaints. However, the discrimination and denigration, balance and accuracy standards are dealt with briefly at paragraph [23].

Our analysis

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

[12]  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. In this case, the harm alleged is the disrespect to Dr Verrall’s character. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁶

[13]  The context in which content occurs, and the wider context of the broadcast, are relevant to assessing whether the broadcast has breached the good taste and decency and fairness standards.⁷ In this case, the following contextual factors were identified:

• Newstalk ZB is an adult targeted radio station for 30-64 year olds.
• Mike Hosking Breakfast is a radio talk show that discusses news and current affairs.
• Hosking is well-known for being a robust interviewer who frequently offers strong, provocative opinions.⁸
• Dr Verrall is a public figure, being the Associate Health Minister.
• The interview of Dr Verrall was focused on the Government’s response to the Delta COVID-19 outbreak. This is an issue of high public interest.
• During the interview itself, Hosking responded to Dr Verrall’s answer as follows:
  Jeez, that’s not very reassuring Ayesha, there was a long pause there and I’m thinking you’re a bit nervous, you nervous? Are we getting this thing under control or not?

Good taste and decency

[14]  The question under this standard is whether Hosking’s use of sound effects and criticisms of Dr Verrall’s pause were likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.⁹

[15]  In a radio context, the standard is generally applied to offensive language, sexual material, or, sometimes, violence.¹⁰ However, it may also apply to other material presented in a way that is likely to cause offence or distress,¹¹ such as where a host’s interview manner is ‘distasteful or unacceptable’.¹²

[16]  We recognise some listeners may find Hosking’s comments and use of animal noises offensive. However, in the context of comments regarding a public figure, we do not consider these reached a threshold justifying regulatory intervention.

[17]  Hosking is well known for his provocative, outspoken style. Listeners would understand the purpose of the sound effects was to add some light-hearted comedic effect to express Mr Hosking’s opinion regarding what he perceived as ‘indecision’ and ‘inner turmoil’ by the Associate Health Minister.

[18]  In this context, any comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.

Fairness

[19]  It is well established that the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for a government entity or a public-facing agency used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage. It is also commonplace for public figures and agencies to be criticised without it giving rise to an expectation of participation in every broadcast.¹³

[20]  Dr Verrall has appeared regularly on the programme in her professional capacity and would be familiar with Hosking’s manner and approach.

[21]  The criticisms in the second segment were not at a level necessitating an opportunity for Dr Verrall to respond, particularly considering Mr Hosking emphasised the pause during the interview. In her professional role, scrutiny of interview responses would be expected, both during the interview and in any following reflections.

[22]  Any harm caused by the broadcast accordingly did not reach the threshold required to constitute a breach of this standard.

Remaining standards

[23]  We consider the remaining standards did not apply:

• Discrimination and denigration: this standard does not apply to individuals but to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.¹⁴
• Balance: this standard requires reasonable efforts to be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.¹⁵ Although the subject of the interview (the Government’s response to the Delta outbreak) is an issue of public importance, the subject of the complaints (Hosking’s criticism of Dr Verrall’s pause) is not.
• Accuracy: Hosking’s comments, and sound effects, were distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, to which the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply.¹⁶ In any event, the broadcast was not materially inaccurate or likely to mislead.

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

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

Susie Staley
Acting Chair
1 December 2021    

Appendix

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

1  Anthony Grant’s formal complaint – 30 August 2021

2  NZME’s response to Grant’s complaint – 27 September 2021

3  Grant’s referral to the Authority – 27 September 2021

4  Grant’s further information for referral to Authority – 28 September 2021

5  NZME’s response to comments in referral – 20 October 2021

6  Grant’s final comments to the Authority – 21 October 2021

7  NZME’s confirmation of no further comments – 3 November 2021

8  Ian Findlay’s initial complaint to NZME – 2 September 2021

9  NZME response to Findlay’s complaint – 28 September 2021

10  Findlay’s referral to the Authority – 29 September 2021

11  NZME’s response to comments in referral – 20 October 2021

12  Findlay’s further comments – 24 October 2021

13  NZME’s final comments – 2 November 2021

14  Findlay’s final comments – 3 November 2021

¹ Standard 1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
³ As above
⁴ Standard 11 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁵ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
⁶ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁷ Guidelines 1a, and 11a
⁸ Burne-Field and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-040 at [9]
⁹ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
¹⁰ As above
¹¹ Lee and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2017-050 at [12]
¹² Hargreaves and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-044B, although the complaint was not upheld in this instance
¹³ Davis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-061 at [31]–[32]; and Edwards and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-085 at [23]
¹⁴ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
¹⁵ Guideline 8a
¹⁶ Guideline 9a