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 segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley, discussing the statistic that 20% of New Zealanders admitted to ‘snooping’ on their partners’ devices, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. Following a story about a listener catching her partner cheating using his ‘find my iPhone’, the hosts made brief comments that ‘the gays should run a course’. The complainant considered the segment denigrated people who identify as gay and perpetuated a negative stereotype that gay people are sneaky. In the context, the Authority found the comments were unlikely to encourage different treatment of gay people to their detriment or devalue the reputation of gay people.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  A segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley, broadcast on 12 September 2024, discussed New Zealanders ‘snooping’ on their partner’s devices. The segment was introduced as follows:

Fletch: So, a fifth of kiwis, one in five kiwis, have admitted to snooping on their partners’ devices.

Vaughan: A device, a new device has entered the arena. A device I had not even considered snooping in.

Hayley: What?

Vaughan: Dashcam.

Hayley: Oh my god. I’ve got a dashcam.

Vaughan [reading out text message]: I was snooping on my husband’s dashcam memory card and saw he parked up on a quiet street with another woman, and you could hear them smooching.

[2]  The hosts then noted there were ‘so many messages in, and some wild stories’ being submitted by listeners, which were read out and discussed by the hosts. The segment ended with a discussion of a story submitted by a listener:

Vaughan [reading out text message]: I got my ex cheating while I was overseas. I checked his Find My iPhone and saw he was in a neighbouring city when he said he went for a run. He denied it at first but then confessed that he was cheating.

Hayley: Neighbouring city…

Vaughan: Everyone knows you leave your phone at home if you’re going to go for a run and hook up with people at the public toilets…

[laughter]

Vaughan: Come on guys! We’re better than this.

Fletch: Yeah, duh. Come on.

Vaughan: Chat to a gay, you know. Get some tips.

Hayley: Duh dumb dumbs.

Vaughan: Come on

Fletch: Duh.

Hayley: Yeah the gays should run a course.

Fletch: [laughs]

Vaughan: The gays should run a course.

Hayley: You know what I mean? A class.

Vaughan: Sneaky devils 101

Hayley: Sneaky devils.

[laughter]

The complaint

[3]  Jayne Hartstone complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis it denigrated people who identify as gay and perpetuated a negative stereotype that they are sneaky. She added:

• ‘People who are impressionable could have their viewpoints shaped by being exposed to such so-called humour.’
• ‘If we extrapolate what was said to other parts of the community, would that be fair or reasonable?... Seems to me that would be in very poor taste, so I wonder why they think it is ok to say this about gay people’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

• ‘The hosts intended the segment to be light and humorous and expected that ZM’s audience would have received it that way.’
• ‘The comments were certainly not made with any ill intent or ill-feeling towards people who identify as gay.’
• It did not consider the comments ‘reinforced or embedded a negative stereotype about people who identify as gay…’
• ‘The standard is not intended to apply to content which is legitimate humour.’
• ‘…ZM is generally known for pushing boundaries of acceptability and that ZM’s breakfast show regularly includes adult humour, including non-sexually explicit content…’
• ‘The overall tone of the segment was light and humorous. The hosts used obvious sarcasm and hyperbole and laughed often. The hosts were not genuinely suggesting that people who identify as gay were always sneaky or that they should teach a course on how to be sneaky, and NZME believes that ZM’s listeners would have identified these comments as sarcastic and humorous…’

Our analysis

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

[6]   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.¹

[7]  The discrimination and denigration standard² protects against broadcasts which encourage the discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief. The standard only applies to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.³ We consider people who identify as gay a ‘relevant section of the community’ for the purposes of the standard.

[8]  ‘Discrimination’ is defined as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular section of the community, to their detriment. ‘Denigration’ is defined as devaluing the reputation of a particular section of the community.⁴

[9]  Where discrimination and denigration complaints are concerned, the importance of freedom of expression means a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to find a breach of the standard (although broadcast content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered).⁵

[10]  Context is an important consideration in assessing whether a broadcast has gone too far. The following contextual factors are relevant to our consideration.

• 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’.⁶
• The show is known for its irreverent humour and has the tagline ‘laugh out louder’.⁷
• The segment was primarily focused on stories about people snooping on their partners’ phones and the ways partners were caught cheating.
• The comments were interspersed with laughter and said without malice or nastiness.
• The comments made up approximately 15 seconds of a six-minute broadcast.

[11]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concerns that the comments may have evoked harmful stereotypes about gay people. We also acknowledge some listeners may have found the comments, about a group historically forced by law to conceal their identities, insensitive or offensive.  However, comments will not breach the standard simply because they are offensive.⁸

[12]  In the context described above, the comments did not appear to have been made with malice or nastiness directed at gay people. The comments suggested gay people would not be so stupid as to be caught in the ways described in the segment. This may not be everyone’s choice of humour, but we do not consider the comments likely to encourage the different treatment of gay people to their detriment or devalue the reputation of gay people.

[13]  Accordingly, we have identified no harm sufficient to justify our intervention.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
28 January 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Jayne Hartstone’s formal complaint – 13 September 2024

2  NZME’s response to the complaint – 08 October 2024

3  Hartstone’s referral to the Authority – 12 October 2024

4  NZME response to the referral – 07 November 2024

5  Hartstone’s comments in response – 07 November 2024

6  NZME’s further comments – 14 November 2024

¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
² Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 12
⁴ Guideline 4.1
⁵ Guideline 4.2
⁶ See Tuck and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-024 at [11] and Williams and The Radio Network Ltd, Decision No. 2014-019 at [6]
⁷ ZM “Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley” (accessed 06 November 2024) <zmonline.com/shows/fletch-vaughan-hayley>
⁸ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 12