BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Q+A with Jack Tame with recently-appointed Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, covering a wide range of topics. One complaint alleged Tame was rude and disrespectful in his interviewing style and showed ‘complete disregard for the position of the country's Prime Minister’. The other complaint alleged comments made by Tame about former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s strengths particularly in the foreign policy sphere (including that she appeared on the cover of Vogue and had ‘soft power’) amounted to ‘misogyny’ by suggesting this was due to her looks, and reflected ‘bigoted views towards women’. The Authority found Tame’s interview style and questioning did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny or challenge that could reasonably be expected in an interview with the Prime Minister on issues of high public importance. The Authority also found Tame’s comments related to Ardern as an individual, rather than commenting on women as a section of the community, but in any case would not reach the threshold for finding a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  On 12 March 2023 on Q+A with Jack Tame, host Jack Tame interviewed recently-appointed Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. The interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and covered a number of topics, for example: recent flooding in Aotearoa New Zealand; fuel excise tax cuts and the effects on greenhouse gas emissions from this; foreign policy; co-governance with respect to the proposed ‘Three Waters’ legislation; and his upcoming election campaign.

[2]  Comments made by Tame in response to some of Hipkins’ answers during the interview included:

• ‘You will have seen some of my interviews in the past. You know that when people don’t answer the question I come back to it.’
• ‘I’m not interested in that.’
• ‘Not what I’m asking.’
• ‘We’re going down a rabbit hole here.’
• ‘That is exactly the kind of attitude that has led to these kinds of [climate change] events, is it not?’

[3]  The interview also included the following exchange in relation to New Zealand foreign policy:

Tame:             Don’t take this the wrong way. You are probably not going to be on the cover of Vogue.

Hipkins:          [laughing] Oh, come on! It’s about time they had a ginger on the cover.

Tame:             Is New Zealand’s foreign policy materially worse off for not having Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister?

Hipkins:          Oh, look, Jacinda and I are very different people. I think New Zealand gained a lot from having Jacinda’s significant international profile, I think it was good free marketing for New Zealand as well. When she travelled abroad, we got the kind of advertising that money can’t buy and I think that was great for New Zealand. But we’re clearly different people, my profile will be a little different to hers. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.

Tame:             So we are materially worse off? In that sense?

Hipkins:          I wouldn’t necessarily say so –

Tame:             We don’t have that soft power though.

Hipkins:          Well, we’re different people…we’re different people, we’ve got a different approach.  

Tame:             What do you bring that she doesn’t?

Hipkins:          Look I don’t want to compare myself to Jacinda –

Tame:             You’re different people.

Hipkins:          Well, we’re different people, and look, Jacinda is a really good friend of mine, as you know, and she was exactly the Prime Minister we needed during COVID-19, and during those really difficult circumstances.

Tame:             So what do you bring for foreign policy that Jacinda Ardern didn’t?

Hipkins:          Oh, look, in terms of foreign policy, the continuity of our foreign policy is going to be quite predictable. You know, our foreign policy hasn’t changed because there is a change of leader. It actually often doesn’t change when there’s a change of government. Actually foreign policy’s an area where, in New Zealand, there’s often a lot of bipartisan agreement.

Tame:             But you have noted that there was a significant soft power element that came from having Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister, you say you’re different people, so what do you bring that she doesn’t?

Hipkins:          Maybe I could frame that in terms of what are my priorities in the foreign policy space. Clearly, we’re a trading nation….      

The complaints

Hobbs

[4]  David Hobbs complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, due to the ‘rude and totally disrespectful’ way that Tame interviewed the Prime Minister:

As a frequent watcher of this programme, I was astounded at the complete disregard for the position of the country's Prime Minister – Mr Tame had no respect for role of PM and from his highly paid pedestal continually pressed for simplistic, news-bite answers to his agenda-set questions.

[5]  On referring his complaint to the Authority, Hobbs did not explicitly raise any broadcasting standards but specified his key concern was ‘the manner in which the interviewer spoke to and treated the Prime Minister’. Hobbs stated, ‘If a subject is dissembling or devious, then this can be made clear without invective.’

McNamara

[6]  McNamara emailed to the Q+A email address, a ‘complaint about Jack Tame’s interview with Chris Hipkins on 12 March’, with the subject matter ‘sexism and misogyny by Jack Tame’. In that email McNamara said:

• ‘Jack Tame said that Chris Hipkins would not get on the cover of Vogue because of his looks and therefore our foreign policy would suffer – with the implication being that Jacinda Ardern’s strength in foreign affairs was due to her looks. He then referred to Jacinda Ardern’s “soft power” in this area.’
• ‘This attitude and approach to seeing women as getting ahead on their looks is misogyny and should not be part of a serious political interview in any form.’
• ‘Women are already suffering from a cooling [effect] on their ability to stand up in leadership positions as a result of the increased abuse and violence towards them through the media coverage of Jacinda Ardern’s leadership. Such an interview only increases the risk of such abuse and violence occurring.’
• ‘This type of media interviewing reveals bigoted views towards women by the interviewer.’

The broadcaster’s response

Hobbs

[7]  TVNZ did not uphold Hobbs’ complaint, saying:

Discrimination and Denigration

• ‘This standard is designed to protect groups of people from discrimination. Chris Hipkins is an individual so the standard has no relevance in a consideration of how the interview with him progressed.’
• ‘The interview comprised factual information and comment, analysis or opinion, which the Standard is not intended to prevent. There was no material in the Programme that expressed a high level of condemnation of any group of people.’

Balance

• As required by the balance standard, ‘The interview with Chris Hipkins traversed issues that could reasonably be considered controversial issues of public importance. But within the Programme’s narrow and clearly defined scope – an interview with Mr Hipkins alone, as the new Prime Minister, discussing his government’s policies and other topical issues – viewers would not reasonably have expected to have been presented with a range of alternative perspectives.’
• ‘In any case, the issues in question were discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints that exist in relation to those issues.’

[8]  Given the nature of Hobbs’ concerns (focused on the manner in which Tame conducted the interview and his rudeness towards Prime Minister Hipkins), we also invited TVNZ’s comments in relation to the fairness standard. TVNZ advised:

• It considered it was unnecessary for the Authority to imply the fairness standard.
• The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to politicians and public figures is higher than for someone unfamiliar with the media, and the complaint was therefore unlikely to succeed.¹
• ‘There is considerable precedent that simply being “rude” or “disrespectful” in interviews with public figures is not sufficient to threaten the standard.’
• It noted a previous Authority decision, Bolster & Latimer and Television New Zealand Ltd,² concerning an interview by Paul Holmes with Helen Kelly, President of the Council of Trade Unions (CTU), had found no breach of the fairness standard despite Holmes being ‘aggressive and confrontational towards Ms Kelly, particularly in the second half of the interview.’³ The Authority found that, in her position as President of the CTU, Kelly would have expected to be interviewed robustly on a topic that had generated much public controversy. Further, its view was that Holmes’ criticism was aimed at Kelly in her professional capacity, and was not a personal attack.
• ‘TVNZ does not agree that the Q+A host in the broadcast Mr Hobbs is complaining about came close to the same sort of questioning or tone in the interview with Chris Hipkins. There is therefore no value in having the Authority add a standard to the referral simply to dismiss it, and to do so seems to disregard the Authority’s own published advice.’⁴

McNamara

[9]  TVNZ did not consider McNamara’s complaint amounted to a ‘formal complaint’ under the Broadcasting Act 1989 (the Act), and did not respond on this basis, advising it would prefer to respond directly to the complainant if the Authority found it did amount to a valid formal complaint.

Jurisdiction issues

Hobbs

[10]  Under section 8(1B) of the Act, the Authority is only able to consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. However, in limited circumstances, the Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary in order to properly consider the complaint.⁵

[11]  While the original complaint did not explicitly refer to the fairness standard, its wording at paragraph [4] regarding the treatment of Prime Minister Hipkins can be reasonably interpreted as raising issues of fairness. We also consider it reasonably necessary to imply the fairness standard, in order to properly consider the complaint (regardless of whether or not the complaint is successful). This is because the discrimination and denigration standard targets harm to sections of the community, rather than particular individuals, and the balance standard is focused on the inclusion of significant alternative perspectives; as such, neither is relevant to the complainant’s key concerns.

[12]  Accordingly, we have determined Hobbs’ complaint under the fairness standard.

McNamara

[13]  When determining whether a complaint falls within the Authority’s jurisdiction we look at whether it meets the criteria set out under section 6 of the Act. Section 6 provides that a formal complaint must have the following characteristics:

• It must be made in writing.
• It must be lodged within 20 days of the broadcast.
• It must be about a programme which has been broadcast, and the allegations it makes must be in respect of that programme.
• The complaint ‘must constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with section 4.’ In other words, it must constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with one or more of the broadcasting standards. As noted above, a broadcasting standard does not necessarily have to be raised explicitly – if it can otherwise be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary in order to properly consider the complaint.⁶

[14]  TVNZ argued McNamara’s initial correspondence to TVNZ did not constitute a ‘formal complaint’ because:

• The correspondence was not directed to the email address at TVNZ for formal complaints, and was not designated a formal complaint.
• ‘Ms McNamara did not cite particular standards or make any allegation which is clearly discussing an issue covered by standards.’
• McNamara had made a formal complaint previously, so could be expected to understand the proper process to do so.
• ‘While Ms McNamara says she intends to go to the BSA if she “doesn’t hear back from Q+A” this is not a statement which meets the criteria for a formal complaint.’

[15]  In this case, we find the complaint did meet the criteria to constitute a ‘formal complaint’ under section 6 of the Act:

• It was made in writing, and sent to the broadcaster within 20 working days of the broadcast (whether or not the broadcaster considers it was sent to the correct email address).
• The email sufficiently identified that it was a complaint and the broadcast it related to, with the email headed: ‘Complaint about Jack Tame’s interview with Chris Hipkins on 12 March…’
• The content of the email raised concerns (‘made allegations’) which were clearly linked with particular content in that broadcast, and which in our view sufficiently conveyed an alleged breach of one or more broadcasting standards: it referred to comments/the host’s attitude in the interview amounting to ‘misogyny’ and revealing ‘bigoted views towards women’, as well as describing the possible harm to women and their ability to be successful in leadership, through the types of comments made by Tame in his questioning. We are satisfied this language can reasonably be interpreted as raising issues under the discrimination and denigration standard, and that implying this standard is reasonably necessary in order to properly consider the complaint (again, this is irrespective of whether or not the complaint succeeds).

[16]  As an aside, we note the fact that McNamara may have made a previous complaint is not relevant for the purposes of the criteria in the Act. We also note the indication McNamara would make a complaint to the Authority if she did not hear back from the broadcaster is consistent with the process set out in the Act for broadcasting standards complaints (which in almost all cases must be sent to the broadcaster in the first instance).

[17]  We have therefore proceeded to determine McNamara’s complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard. Given we have already provided the broadcaster with an opportunity to comment, and our ultimate finding on the complaint below, we do not consider it necessary to direct it back to the broadcaster for consideration in the first instance.

The standards

[18]  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.

[19]  The discrimination and denigration standard⁹ 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. ‘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.¹⁰ 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 broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Broadcast content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered.¹¹

Our analysis

[20]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[21]  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 and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.¹²

Fairness

[22]  Hobbs’ concerns under the fairness standard relate to the host’s interview manner towards, and treatment of, Prime Minister Hipkins during the interview.

[23]  As noted by the broadcaster, it is well established the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to public figures and politicians is higher than for a layperson or someone unfamiliar with the media.¹³ Public figures and politicians hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles and behaviour is encouraged and expected. They are frequently capable interviewees, experienced in handling aggressive or inflammatory questioning or other coverage that may be considered unfair for an ordinary person.¹⁴ For these reasons, we have consistently not upheld complaints about fairness to politicians when being interviewed about matters in their professional capacity.¹⁵

[24]  In this case, we appreciate the complainant found Tame’s manner to be disrespectful to the Prime Minister. However, Hipkins is a highly experienced politician and interviewee, and by nature of his role as the current Prime Minister, frequently fronts the media on issues of high public importance. We do not consider Tame’s questions or comments went beyond a level of robust scrutiny or challenge that could reasonably be expected in an interview with the Prime Minister of New Zealand on such issues. 

[25]  In addition, we consider Hipkins was given reasonable opportunity to respond to the questions posed, and audiences would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him as a result of the interview.

[26]  Accordingly, we do not uphold Hobbs’ complaint.

Discrimination and Denigration

[27]  The discrimination and denigration standard only applies to recognised ‘sections of the community,’ which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.¹⁶ In considering McNamara’s concerns under this standard, the first question for us was whether Tame’s comments about Ardern as an individual and her professional performance, could reasonably be considered as extending to all women as a recognised section of the community.

[28]  As outlined in [3] above, the relevant exchange began with Tame noting, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way. You are probably not going to be on the cover of Vogue. …Is New Zealand’s foreign policy materially worse off for not having Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister?’ The conversation that followed focused on how Hipkins would compare in that space and what he would offer that Ardern didn’t, including Hipkins acknowledging Ardern’s ‘significant international profile’ and that his own profile would be different (but ‘not necessarily a bad thing’), and then later outlining trading priorities going forward.

[29]  In our view, the most likely interpretation of the exchange was that Ardern had a significant international profile, and therefore Hipkins may think New Zealand’s foreign policy was worse off given she was no longer Prime Minister. Similarly, the host’s references to Ardern’s ‘soft power’ (defined as ‘the ability to achieve one’s goals without force, especially by diplomacy, persuasion etc.’¹⁷) were, in our view, also more likely referring to her high international profile and respect she garnered internationally through her handling of significant national events and the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁸

[30]  Even if the comments may have been interpreted by some (including the complainant) as impliedly relating to Ardern’s looks, we consider it would be a stretch to find that extended to making any comment about all women as a section of the community, in the broader context of the broadcast. Nor would the comments reach the high threshold for finding the broadcast caused harm at a level justifying the restriction of freedom of expression. This was a serious political discussion that carried public interest, and did not contain any element of malice or nastiness towards either Ardern or women generally.

[31]  We therefore do not uphold McNamara’s complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority declines to determine 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:

Hobbs

1  David Hobbs’ formal complaint – 13 March 2023

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 4 April 2023

3  Hobbs’ referral to the Authority – 5 April 2023

4  TVNZ’s further comments – 8 June 2023

5  Hobbs’ further comments – 16 June 2023

6  TVNZ confirming no further comments – 20 June 2023

McNamara

7  Jan McNamara’s formal complaint – 12 March 2023

8  McNamara’s referral to the Authority – 10 May 2023

9  TVNZ disputing McNamara’s correspondence was a formal complaint – 15 May 2023

¹ Citing Broadcasting Standards Authority “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <www.bsa.govt.nz> (see “Fairness applied to politicians/public figures”)
² Bolster and Latimer and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-186
³ As above, at [27]
⁴ Broadcasting Standards Authority “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <www.bsa.govt.nz> (see “Fairness applied to politicians/public figures”)
⁵ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁶ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
⁹ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Guideline 4.1
¹¹ Guideline 4.2
¹² Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
¹³ Guideline 8.1
¹⁴ Broadcasting Standards Authority “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <www.bsa.govt.nz> (see “Fairness applied to politicians/public figures”)
¹⁵ See: Broadcasting Standards Authority “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <www.bsa.govt.nz> (see “Fairness applied to politicians/public figures”); Frewen and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-146B; Bowkett and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2020-103; Cowie and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-133; Downes, Penning, Maltby, Massie & Tang and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-123; and Marra and Mediaworks Radio, Decision No. 2019-023
¹⁶ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
¹⁷ Collins Dictionary “Soft power” <https://www.collinsdictionary.com>
¹⁸ Aina J. Khan “Mother, politician, trailblazer. How Jacinda Ardern became an icon for millions” NBC News (online ed, 20 January 2023); Anne Lim “Jacinda Ardern: The legacy of a leader in New Zealand and beyond” University of Oxford (online ed, 30 January 2023)