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 alleging a 1News item on a Donald Trump campaign rally breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The complaint was that the item portrayed Trump, his supporters and the Trump campaign in a positive light, while failing to mention his participation in election denial; as a result, the segment could encourage some viewers to participate in election denial. The Authority found this was a straightforward news item covering Trump’s campaign rally, before offering typical political commentary from the US Correspondent on Trump’s election chances. The broadcast did not promote or glamorise illegal or antisocial activity, nor encourage New Zealand voters to engage in election denial.

Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

The broadcast

[1]  The 1News broadcast on 21 July 2024 included a segment about Donald Trump’s first campaign rally since surviving an assassination attempt the week prior. Trump was shown promoting his presidential campaign and the recently selected Republican nominee for Vice President, JD Vance. The 1News US Correspondent interviewed Trump supporters queueing outside the rally, who discussed their support for Donald Trump and the previous week’s assassination attempt.

[2]  The 1News Presenter then asked the US Correspondent:

What a week. Can he win? Can Donald Trump return to the White House?

[3]  The US Correspondent replied:

Well, [Presenter], every Republican I spoke to in Grand Rapids kind of thought that they had it in the bag. And that's because they're looking at what's happening on the other side, and they only see chaos and disorder. And, also, I've spoken to a number of Democrats on my travels over the past week or so, and they all are concerned about the ongoing debate about party leadership going into this election. And that's because, due to the somewhat magical way that US elections carry themselves out, everyone's expecting that this will be a battle that comes down to the small towns, the small suburbs of America that could flip either way. And if you put policy to one side and look at the two major parties, you really have only got two choices as it stands today. One is a party that seems relatively organized, and another party which seems like they can't even decide who's going to lead them into November. So, an interesting decision there. Of course, though, and the big asterisks over everything is anything can change, especially ahead of the Democratic National Convention set to take place here in just a couple of weeks, in the mighty city of Chicago. 

The complaint

[4]  Jay Hall complained the item breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand because they considered:

• The segment portrayed Donald Trump and his campaign in a positive light.
• Considering Trump’s participation in election denial, and the audience’s knowledge of his election denial, a reasonable person would conclude from the segment that ‘behaving like Donald Trump and his supporters is acceptable or desirable’.
• The complainant acknowledged this was ‘a stretch of the standard’ but considered that by not referencing election denial, the item communicated that ‘election denial, and other behaviours undermining democracy, are of no concern to a major New Zealand broadcaster’. Combined with the overall positive portrayal of the Trump campaign, this item would encourage some to view election denial ‘as a valid, or even desirable, tool’ in New Zealand politics and may lead to New Zealand voters also participating in election denial.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint, saying:

• The broadcast was a straightforward news report covering Trump’s campaign rally, followed by commentary from the 1News US Correspondent on the then-current state of US politics.
• Nothing in the segment suggested ‘behaving like Donald Trump… is acceptable or desirable’. The item did not implicitly or explicitly support Donald Trump.
• Nor was it reasonable to conclude the segment would cause viewers to behave in illegal or antisocial ways.
• ‘Donald Trump has acted in illegal and seriously antisocial ways’, and such activities have been covered by 1News and various other news outlets.

The standard

[6]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard¹ is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.²

Our analysis

[7]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. Our task is to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against the potential harm alleged to have been caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the broadcast has caused actual or potential harm at a level which justifies placing a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.³

[8]  When we assess alleged harm under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard, context, and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control, are crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.⁴

[9]  This was a straightforward news report covering Trump’s first campaign rally since an assassination attempt against him the week prior, which included clips of interviews with some of his supporters and was followed by commentary from the US Correspondent on Trump’s election chances. We do not agree viewers would conclude from the news item that behaving like Trump and his supporters is ‘acceptable or desirable’, nor that the broadcast encouraged viewers to participate in election denial.

[10]  The complainant’s desire for the item to mention Trump’s alleged illegal activity and election denial is more a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, than an issue of broadcasting standards. The standard does not require broadcasters to reference Trump’s alleged illegal activity every time Trump or his election campaign is reported on – particularly when, as noted by the broadcaster, that has been widely covered in other reporting. Such a requirement would itself unreasonably restrict broadcasters’ freedom of expression. The standard is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine, or promote disobedience of, the law or legal processes.⁵ We are satisfied the broadcast did not have this effect.

[11]  Accordingly, we find no harm that justifies regulatory intervention or limiting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. We do not uphold the complaint.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
12 November 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Jay Hall's initial complaint to TVNZ – 21 July 2024

2  TVNZ's decision on the complaint – 16 August 2024

3  Hall’s referral to the Authority and clarification of initial complaint – 23 August 2024

4  TVNZ confirming no further comments – 6 September 2024

¹ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Guideline 3.1
⁵ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11