BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

In a segment on Breakfast, the hosts tried out a ‘Bug-A-Salt’; a device in the shape of a firearm which shoots granules of salt to kill flies and other bugs. As part of the segment, the hosts did some ‘target practice’ on a Donald Trump ‘troll doll,’ shooting it down twice. The Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour broadcasting standards. While the Authority found the segment pushed the boundaries of acceptable humour, in the context of the broadcast, including the comedic and light-hearted tone, the focus on the effectiveness of the Bug-A-Salt rather than Trump, and the lack of malicious intent, it found it was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Further, there was no suggestion or insinuation by the hosts that violence with real firearms against politicians was acceptable or encouraged.

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

The broadcast

[1]  In a segment on Breakfast, broadcast on 24 January 2023, the hosts Jenny‑May Clarkson, Chris Chang, Matt McLean and Anna Burns‑Francis tried out the ‘Bug-A-Salt’, a device in a shape resembling a firearm used to kill flies and other bugs.¹ The segment began with the hosts stating:

McLean              Now, we've been talking about solutions to the fly problem, which a lot of people have been having. And these bad boys [pointing to the Bug-A-Salt], a lot of people love. Pump action.

[…]

Chang:                So what we're going to do is, once we get this working, I've got a little target that we can use, just happened to be on my desk [holds up a small ‘troll doll’ resembling Donald Trump]. So we'll put this little target down and do a bit of target training.

[2]  The presenters tried out the Bug-A-Salt, and Chang shot Burns-Francis in the leg as a test (who responds ‘OK, it doesn’t hurt’) following a viewer’s comment they test it on their leg so they are aware of the power of the device. After this, they stood the Trump troll doll up on their desk and Chang shot the doll, causing it to fall down. Chang then stated, in a voice mimicking Trump’s:

Chang:                That was huge. We got to get rid of these guys they're coming into our country.

[3]  Clarkson then shot the Trump troll doll down a second time.

[4]  At the conclusion of the segment the hosts stated:

McLean:             But it does the trick, if you work on your target practice obviously. So get a little doll, a little Donald Trump doll. And go hard. Just don't shoot other people.

Chang:               No.

Burns-Francis:  It does say don't aim for the face or eyes. No, it didn't hurt.

The complaints

[5]  Susan Jones, Nicola Seale, and Gerard Daldry complained the presenters using a Trump doll for target practice with the Bug-A-Salt breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand as:

Offensive and Disturbing Content

• It was offensive to American citizens given Trump is a former president of the United States, and to New Zealanders who support Trump. (Jones, Seale)
• ‘Telling the public to get a Trump doll and go hard out is completely irresponsible and perverted.’ (Jones)
• The segment implied it was okay to shoot at politicians. (Jones)
• If a doll of Jacinda Ardern was used for target practice there would be a massive outcry. (Jones, Seale)
• ‘It is in no way responsible to have aired this when children are watching, albeit with or without parents.’ (Jones)

Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

• The segment was aired ‘when children would have been getting ready for school. These guns while being "fake" represent a real firearm and are not designed whatsoever to be shot at humans’ let alone promoting the assassination of an elected official: this use was reckless. (Daldry)
• The segment had the potential to incite violence and murder. (Seale)

[6]  While Daldry only raised the promotion of illegal or antisocial standard in their formal complaint to the broadcaster, they also sought to raise the offensive and disturbing content standard upon referral to the Authority. Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider the complaint under the standards raised, either explicitly or implicitly, in the original complaint to the broadcaster.² In this case however, it is not necessary to consider whether the offensive and disturbing content standard was implicitly raised in the original formal complaint given the standard has been raised by other complainants for similar reasons.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaints for the following reasons:

Offensive and Disturbing Content

• It did not agree the segment would have offended or disturbed a significant number of viewers in the context of which it screened. While acknowledging some viewers may have found the use of the doll to be ‘rude or disrespectful’, the standard does not ‘prohibit broadcasters from being “rude” or “disrespectful”.’
• ‘The segment is a light-hearted, general-interest piece demonstrating the popular “Bug-A-Salt” novelty pest control gun. It is humorous and jocular, at times bordering on slapstick, and clearly not intended to be a serious piece of news content.’ This is supported through one presenter’s brief impression of Trump, referencing his ‘views on illegal immigration. The impression is clearly intended to be humorous and it is seemingly improvised in the moment. The impression is not performed with venom, and it’s not employed to express a specific criticism of Mr Trump.’
• ‘The segment does not contain real people being hurt, or graphic simulations of realistic violence, it is not a “mock execution,” and would not be considered to be by a reasonable viewer.’
• ‘The Bug-A-Salt gun is shaped in the style of a shotgun, and is operated in a similar fashion. However, its bright colours and plastic construction make it obvious that it is a novelty apparatus and not a real firearm. It has a bright orange tip, a common safety feature³ used to distinguish non-lethal imitations from real firearms.’
• ‘It is apparent that the Donald Trump doll is included for humorous effect rather than for a serious or topical purpose. The segment does not contain a serious or substantive discussion about Mr Trump, in respect to either his personal life or political career.’ Further, the doll plays a relatively minor part in the segment overall.
• ‘Donald Trump is often the target of humour, as are many other prominent figures. The [Offensive and Disturbing Content] Standard is not intended to prevent the expression of humour, even if it may be targeted at an individual.’
• ‘The threshold for what may be considered an acceptable expression of humour will in most circumstances be higher for public figures than regular people. Prominent people like Donald Trump loom large in public life, and it is only natural that they would also feature prominently in public discourse, and consequently as subjects for humour.’
• ‘The use of humour, commonly in the forms of satire and caricature, is an intrinsic and highly valued component of political discourse, the roots of which can be found in the earliest manifestations of modern democracy. The segment's humorous, light-hearted, tone indicates to viewers that there is no realistic encouragement to harm a real person.’

Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

• It did not agree the segment encouraged realistic anti-social or illegal behaviour.
• ‘The comments and actions which were shown were not unlawful and they did not incite viewers to commit unlawful acts. [TVNZ] notes that it is commonplace for novelty or toy guns to be fired at targets, which can include dolls, and this is not the same as advocating shooting a real person.’
• ‘The segment does not contain statements or actions that could reasonably be interpreted as genuine threats or incitements to violence, either toward Donald Trump or any other person.’
• ‘When one of the presenters eventually succeeds in shooting salt at a co-presenter, they conclude that the gun does not present a significant risk of injury to humans. Nevertheless, they convey the manufacturer’s recommendation that the gun should not be fired at other people.’
• The suggestion viewers get their own Donald Trump doll for target practice was ‘clearly tongue-in-cheek’ and stated to bring the segment to a close (which it does). Further, this comment was ‘made in relation to the Bug-A-Salt gun. There is no suggestion, explicit or implied, that viewers should use real firearms, or aim them at real people.’
• ‘The segment’s humorous, light-hearted tone indicates to viewers that there is no realistic encouragement to harm a real person.’
• It did not agree ‘that there is a correlation between the segment and the matter of abusive or threatening behaviour directed at politicians in the New Zealand context’ although it acknowledged the segment ‘was ill-considered when viewed against that backdrop’ (but did not consider it had the effect of being ‘genuinely threatening or abusive’).

The standards

[8]  The offensive and disturbing content standard⁴ states broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:

• the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
• the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[9]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard⁵ is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.⁶ Context, and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control, are also crucial under this standard in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.⁷

Our analysis

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

[11]  Our starting point is to consider the important right to freedom of expression, which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of content and information to its audience, and the audience’s right to receive it. The Authority’s role is to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value of the broadcast against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where limiting the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.⁸

[12]  We acknowledge some viewers, including the complainants, found the Breakfast hosts shooting the Trump troll doll with a Bug-A-Salt to be in poor taste. However, for the reasons set out below we do not consider the segment reached the threshold justifying restricting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

Offensive and disturbing content

[13]  Attitudes towards taste and decency – including various types of humour and what people may find funny – differ widely and continue to evolve in a diverse society such as ours. The standard does not prohibit challenging material, but rather ensures that broadcasts fall within the broad limit of not causing widespread disproportionate offence or distress or seriously undermining widely shared community standards.⁹

[14]  The context of the broadcast is important in assessing whether the broadcast exceeded this limit.¹⁰ We consider the following contextual factors to be relevant in this case:

• Breakfast is an unclassified news/current affairs and talk show with an adult target audience. The presenters routinely engage in light-hearted and colloquial discussions.¹¹
• The tone of the segment was humorous and jovial, and focused on the effectiveness of the Bug-A-Salt, as many people had been experiencing issues with flies in their house at the time.
• The Trump troll doll only featured as a Bug-A-Salt practice target. The broadcast did not focus on or discuss Trump and his political views, bar Chang mimicking Trump after shooting the doll, saying ‘That was huge. We got to get rid of these guys they're coming into our country.’
• While the Bug-A-Salt is shaped like a firearm, the segment made it clear that it was in fact a device to shoot salt at flies. The presenters made it clear ‘it doesn’t hurt’.
• The Trump troll doll resembles a caricature of Trump, with a large tuft of bright yellow hair.
• The hosts shot down the Trump troll doll twice.
• McLean invited viewers to go get ‘a little Donald Trump doll’ and ‘go hard’ to practice their aim with a Bug-A-Salt.
• The hosts noted ‘Just don't shoot other people,’ and ‘It does say don't aim for the face or eyes.’
• Trump is a high profile politician and public figure who could reasonably expect to be subject to satire and scrutiny.

[15]  In light of the above contextual factors, and particularly the comedic and light‑hearted nature of the segment, we consider it was clear the segment was intended as a joke and was consistent with discussion typically featured on Breakfast. Although the humour may not have been to everyone’s taste, humour and satire are an important form of speech on which society places value.¹² Additionally, Chang’s imitation of Trump was intended as humorous, playing on Trump’s immigration policies and the fact the Bug-A-Salt is intended to get rid of flies.

[16]  We understand some people found this segment disrespectful and offensive, given it featured a doll depicting (albeit unrealistically) a political figure and former president of the United States being shot at with a device resembling a firearm. We acknowledge this imagery had the potential to be associated with gun violence, and in our view, pushed the boundaries of acceptable humour.

[17]  However, ultimately, the hosts’ use of the Trump troll doll was as a target to demonstrate how a Bug-A-Salt worked. We do not consider the segment reached a threshold justifying regulatory intervention and a corresponding restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

[18]  For completeness, regarding submissions the segment was inappropriate for children, we note Breakfast is not a children’s programme, and it is expected young children watching such programmes will be supervised.¹³ Based on the contextual factors above, content of this nature is within audience expectations of the Breakfast programme. While children allowed to watch the programme may then still see adult targeted content, parents and caregivers are at least there to discuss and explain it.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[19]  This standard is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine, or promote disobedience of the law or legal processes. Direct incitement to break the law is likely to breach this standard, if there is a real likelihood the audience will act on it. Broadcasts which condone criminal activity or present it as positive or humorous may have this effect.¹⁴

[20]  Taking into account the contextual factors identified above at paragraph [14], we do not consider the broadcast had the effect of encouraging viewers to break the law or otherwise engage in serious antisocial activity. Specifically, we do not consider the broadcast had the impact of promoting or encouraging gun violence against Trump or politicians generally, as the complainants have alleged.

[21]  The hosts were demonstrating the use of a Bug-A-Salt, and the tone was light-hearted and humorous. The host’s invitation to viewers to get a Trump doll and ‘go hard’ was solely in relation to a Bug-A-Salt, and the host explicitly said ‘Just don’t shoot other people.’ There was no suggestion or insinuation by the hosts that violence with real firearms against politicians was acceptable or encouraged.

[22]  In these circumstances, we similarly do not uphold the complaints under this standard.

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

Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i
Member
14 June 2023    

Appendix

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

Jones

1  Susan Jones’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 24 January 2023

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 22 February 2023

3  Jones’s referral to the Authority – 5 March 2023

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 23 March 2023

Seale

5  Nicola Seale’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 24 January 2023

6  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 22 February 2023

7  Seale’s referral to the Authority – 9 March 2023

8  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 23 March 2023

Daldry

9  Gerard Daldry’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 25 January 2023

10  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 22 February 2023

11  Daldry’s referral to the Authority – 14 March 2023

12  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 23 March 2023

¹ While not described further in the broadcast, we note the manufacturer describes the product as ‘the ultimate fly swatter, which uses ordinary table salt as a lethal, non-toxic projectile. The BUG-A-SALT has an accuracy range of within three feet, leaves bugs whole for easy cleanup, and is a surefire fun way to enjoy a disgusting task’, see BUG-A-SALT New Zealand ‘About Us’ (accessed 16 May 2023) <www.bugasalt.co.nz>
² Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
³ Citing Wikipedia ‘Toy Gun’ (accessed 16 May 2023) <www.en.wikipedia.org>
⁴ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 11
⁷ Guideline 3.1
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 8
¹⁰ Guideline 1.1
¹¹ Carswell and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision  No. 2022-037 at [9]
¹² Curran and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-165 at [21] and Marston and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-117 at [14]
¹³ Guideline 1.5
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 11