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 brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  During a segment of the 16 May 2024 broadcast of Bree & Clint on ZM the hosts were involved in a 24-hour movie marathon. As this happened, they discussed ways to stay awake for the duration. The segment was introduced as follows:

We have just kicked off our first film for the blockbuster binge-athon. It's been playing for a grand total of 3.5 minutes, and now we've bloody paused it so that we can do some talking. How annoying for everybody here.

[2]  The hosts then discussed methods for staying awake, such as coffee, caffeine pills and ice baths. They then asked for ideas from listeners and the following exchange aired:

Clint:            What tips have the people got? Listening right now on 0800 dial ZM? We're about to sink into our movie marathon. What do you think we could do to make sure that we get through? Because I'd love to get to the end of this and say that I saw every minute of every movie.

Bree:            You know, I'll be proud of you if you do. Is my faith in you at 100%? Not really. But I reckon, I reckon it will grow as the night goes on.

Clint:            Can everyone stop texting in ‘do meth’ please? [Bree laughs] That is not something- yes, it will make you stay awake. 

Bree:            We're not doing that. 

Clint:            We're looking to stay awake, not ruin our life. 

Bree:            Yeah, like we want to complete the movie marathon, but not that bad. [Both laugh]

The complaint

[3]  Monica Hailes-Paku complained that the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• ‘[Both] announcers trivialized the monstrous scourge Meth is in our society. The announcer should not have given air time to Meth by making it seem cute that listeners were suggesting it. Meth is evil, the worst drug ever synthesized’.
• The hosts should have ignored the text messages and not given any airtime to discussion of the drug. Giving it airtime was irresponsible and damaging.
• The objective of those messaging was ‘to give airtime to methamphetamine at a time when families are preparing meals together, children asking questions’.
• The comments demonstrated a ‘lack of respect for all those who are enduring suffering and family fragmentation because of methamphetamine use’.
• It was naïve for the broadcaster to expect only their target audience would be listening.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  NZME did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Offensive and Disturbing Content

• ‘ZM is an adult-targeted radio station for 18- to 39-year-olds. In a recent decision, the Broadcasting Standards Authority recognised that ZM is generally known for “pushing boundaries of acceptability”.¹ As such, we consider ZM’s listeners would expect the show to include content that some people may find offensive.’
• ‘Having reviewed the broadcast logs, we consider that the hosts unequivocally stated that they would not use meth due to its negative impact, with Clint going so far as to say that using meth would ruin their lives. We do not agree with your view that the hosts’ request that listeners stop recommending using meth to stay awake made the listeners’ suggestions seem cute, or trivialised the negative impacts of meth use on our society.’
• ‘Taking into account the context of this broadcast, including audience expectations for ZM generally, we do not consider that the hosts’ comments were likely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience.’

Promotion of Illegal or Serious Antisocial Behaviour 

• ‘For largely the same reasons as set out above, we do not consider that this standard was breached. The hosts very clearly stated that they would not do meth, and that using meth has overwhelmingly negative effects.’
• ‘We are satisfied that nothing in this broadcast would have had the effect of encouraging listeners to break the law, or otherwise promote, glamourise or condone crime or serious antisocial activity within the meaning of this standard.’

Fairness

• ‘Although you have nominated this standard in your complaint, you have not specified any organisations or individuals that you believe have been treated unfairly. We note that Clint’s initial comment was directed specifically at those listeners who had texted in to suggest using meth to stay awake during the movie marathon. In our view, the hosts’ discussion of that suggestion did not amount to unfair treatment of those texters.’

The standards

[5]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard² 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.³ 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.

[6]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard⁴ is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.⁵ Context, and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control, are crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.⁶

[7]  The fairness standard⁷ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁸ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[8]  We have listened to 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.⁹

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[10]  The context of the broadcast is crucial to our assessment of potential harm under the offensive and disturbing content standard. The harm alleged in this case is it was offensive to broadcast a discussion about methamphetamine where it was treated lightly or made to seem ‘cute.’

[11]  We considered the following contextual factors were relevant in this case:

• The Authority has previously recognised ZM as an ‘edgy radio station’ with a target audience of 18 to 39-year-olds, which is known for ‘pushing boundaries of acceptability’.¹⁰
• Audience expectations of programmes airing on ZM include the use of adult humour.¹¹
• Children were not the target or intended audience.
• The hosts asked listeners to stop texting them to ‘do meth’ in order to stay awake. While acknowledging it would make you stay awake, both said they would not take the drug and Clint included ‘We're looking to stay awake, not ruin our life’.
• The hosts laughed throughout and after the exchange.

[12]  We acknowledge the discussion of methamphetamine may have been offensive to some (particularly those who have endured its impacts personally or within their families).

[13]  A key consideration under this standard is whether the content complained about was outside audience expectations for the type of programme. Based on the contextual factors discussed above, we do not consider that laughing at the suggestion of taking methamphetamine, or bringing up harmful drugs as a joke, was outside audience expectations of the programme or the station. Both hosts made it clear they had no interest in taking the drug and emphasised the harm it could cause. In our view, they were laughing at the ridiculous nature of the suggestion. In this context, the exchange was unlikely to offend or significantly disturb a large portion of the audience.

[14]  With regard to the complainant’s concerns about children, children would have heard the same comments about the hosts not being willing to take meth and about its potential to ‘ruin [their] life’. Children were also not the target audience for the programme. The Code of Broadcasting Standards acknowledges it is not possible or practicable for broadcasters to shield children from all potentially unsuitable content.¹² Parents and caregivers share responsibility for what their children are exposed to and, in our view, are likely to understand that:

• this programme may contain material which is unsuitable for children
• if they choose to allow children to listen to it, there may be a need to explain or discuss certain content.

[15]  Accordingly, we do not consider the comments created sufficient potential harm to warrant regulatory intervention and consider upholding the complaint would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

[16]  The complainant’s concern under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard is that discussing methamphetamine in a way that makes it appear ‘cute’ or humorous would encourage people to use the drug.

[17]  The contextual factors outlined under the previous standard at [11] are also important considerations when assessing complaints under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard.¹³

[18]  The standard does not stop broadcasters from depicting or discussing antisocial behaviour. It is concerned with broadcasts that actively promote or encourage serious antisocial (or illegal) behaviour.¹⁴

[19]  Methamphetamine use is clearly an illegal or serious antisocial behaviour. The Authority has previously found that presenting antisocial behaviour in a humorous or light-hearted way can incite people to copy the behaviour.¹⁵ However this does not mean such behaviour may not be discussed with a humorous tone in any situation or context.

[20]  We do not consider the broadcast likely had the effect of encouraging methamphetamine use. The exchange between the hosts clearly conveyed they had no interest in the drug, and that it would ‘ruin [their] lives’. Treating the suggestion as ridiculous and laughing at it, while condemning it, is unlikely to incite members of the audience to take methamphetamine.

[21]  On this basis, we do not consider the broadcast was likely to promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour. Any potential harm would not justify limitation of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

Fairness

[22]  The fairness standard only applies to protect individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast.¹⁶ The complainant has not nominated any individual or organisation they consider has been unfairly treated in the broadcast. 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
2 September 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Monica Hailes-Paku's formal complaint to NZME - 16 May 2024

2  NZME's decision on the complaint - 13 June 2024

3  Hailes-Paku's referral to the Authority - 13 June 2024

4  Hailes-Paku's email to NZME in response to the complaint - 13 June 2024

5  Hailes-Paku's further comments - 14 June 2024

6  NZME's further comments - 1 July 2024

7  Hailes-Paku's further comments - 2 July 2024

8  NZME confirming no further comments - 15 July 2024

¹ Tuck and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-024
² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁴ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁶ Guideline 3.1
⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ Tuck and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-024 at [11]
¹¹ As above
¹² Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 10
¹³ Guideline 3.1
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 11
¹⁵ See Black and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-162 at [14]
¹⁶ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand