BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

An item on 1 News reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. In describing both contenders, the reporter referred to Bridges as an ‘absolute political mongrel’. The complainant stated this reference breached various standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it was inappropriate to describe the Minister as a mongrel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the term had a separate, complimentary, meaning which was clearly intended in this context. The discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1 News broadcast on 29 November 2021 reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. The reporter’s description of both contenders included the following:

Now, Christopher Luxon, he's a political novice. He's only been here for a year… Now, he's also got Sir John Key in his corner, I understand Sir John's been making phone calls on his behalf, trying to sort of ramp up support in terms for Chris Luxon. But I can also tell you that that's really getting on the goat of some National Party MPs. They're really unimpressed. They think if Chris Luxon wants the top job, he should be out there standing on his own two feet and doing that himself. I also understand some MPs are pretty unhappy about the possibility that Chris Luxon may run with Nicola Willis, MP here.

…on the other hand, you've got Simon Bridges, you know, he's an absolute political mongrel. He would be more than willing to take the fight to the Government, MPs know that. National MPs would all be aware of his track record there. But, on the other hand, they'd also know that he didn't really gel with the public when he was last National Party leader, really suffered in those polls. And they'll be questioning whether he's popular enough to take on Jacinda Ardern.

The complaint

[2]  Jeff Millward complained the broadcast breached the following standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice:

• Good taste and decency: Use of the term, ‘as defined in the dictionary, was inappropriate and not something mainstream New Zealand people would accept to describe a person’.
• Discrimination and Denigration: ‘Given that Simon Bridges is [of] mixed descent’, the phrase ‘was more racist against’ him, ‘and once again inappropriate’.
• Balance: ‘The description of Simon Bridges as opposed to other politicians lacked balance.’
• Accuracy: ‘It is not an accurate description. People who did not know him… would take the wrong impression from the reporting.’
• Fairness: ‘The assessment and labelling was not fair nor appropriate usage in its context of reporting.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) acknowledged the complainant’s distaste for the term, but did not uphold the complaint, noting:

• ‘“Political mongrel” is a common colloquial term in New Zealand’, described as ‘an admiring term for someone reckless and headstrong, with “a mongrel streak” or “a bit of mongrel” considered a necessary characteristic for a cutthroat politician or a rugby player. To be “a bit of a mongrel” is to be unpredictable, dogged, pugnacious, and hard charging.’¹
• The term ‘was not intended to refer to Mr Bridges’ cultural affiliations, rather it is a description of his toughness in the political arena – especially in the debating chamber, and in his ability to provide arresting media commentary about the Labour government. In this context it is a complimentary comment about his political nous.’
• The ‘term “mongrel” can have a negative or pejorative meaning,’ however, this meaning was not intended, or supported, by the context of what was said.
• ‘Mr Bridges is an individual’ and the discrimination and denigration standard ‘is designed to protect categories of people from discrimination and denigration.’
• The discussion was ‘clearly analysis of the two front contenders for National Party Leader and as such the discussion is clearly framed as the Political Reporter’s analysis and opinion of the two MPs.’ Further, the comments ‘did not stray into the personally abusive.’

The standards

[4]  The good taste and decency standard² states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme. The standard is intended to protect audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.³

[5]  The fairness standard⁴ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁵ It ensures individuals and organisations are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

[6]  We consider the good taste and decency and fairness standards are most relevant to the complaint. However, the discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards are dealt with briefly at paragraph [15].

Our analysis

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

[8]  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 reasonable and justified.⁶

Good Taste and Decency and Fairness

[9]  First, we acknowledge the complainant’s concern the use of ‘mongrel’ may be considered offensive, particularly if used in a derogatory way to refer to a person’s lineage. We also acknowledge the potential racial connotations the term can carry in some contexts.⁷  

[10]  However, we do not consider the use of the term in this broadcast undermined current norms of good taste and decency, or resulted in unfairness. Context is crucial to both standards.⁸ We find the context revealed a clear meaning of the term, entirely unrelated to the Minister’s lineage or race as claimed by the complainant. In this case, the meaning intended was that the Minister had political prowess.

[11]  In reaching this finding, we identified the following contextual factors:

• 1 News is a current affairs programme aimed at an adult audience.
• News and current affairs programmes are unlikely to be viewed by unsupervised young children.⁹
• The reporter provided political commentary comparing the candidates, identifying positives for each candidate (Sir John Key’s support for Luxon, and Bridges’s political experience), contrasted with negatives (internal party conflict regarding Luxon, and Bridges’s low polling)
• The term was couched in the reporter’s positive comments on Bridges, then followed by the reporter’s negative comments (partitioned through the use of ‘But, on the other hand...’).

[12]  We are also influenced by the following:

• We accept the term is a New Zealand colloquialism that is still used today.¹⁰
• The BSA conducts regular research into offensive language in broadcasting. The word ‘mongrel’ has never been included in the list of words tested.¹¹ When asked if any other, not listed, words or expressions were considered offensive, participants in the 2018 survey did not suggest ‘mongrel’. This suggests the general level of unacceptability of this term is low.¹²
• The term also does not feature in a similar report commissioned by the UK regulator, OFCOM.¹³

[13]  We consider the audience would have likely understood the term to be a compliment to Bridges. Therefore, it was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.

[14]  Further, it is well established the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for public figures (such as politicians) who would be used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage.¹⁴ We find the broadcast referred to Bridges fairly and, as the comment would be understood as a compliment, was unlikely to adversely affect him.

Remaining standards

[15]  We do not consider the remaining standards did not apply in this instance:

• Discrimination and Denigration:¹⁵ The standard does not apply to individuals but to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.¹⁶
• Balance:¹⁷ The standard requires reasonable efforts to be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.¹⁸ While the issue of a major political party’s leadership could constitute a controversial issue of public importance, the subject of the complaint (describing Bridges as a ‘political mongrel’) is not.
• Accuracy:¹⁹ The purpose of the standard is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.²⁰ The standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment, or opinion, rather than statements of fact.²¹ The broadcast reflected the reporter’s own views on the candidates and clearly constituted political commentary.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
2 March 2022

Appendix

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

1  Jeff Millward’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 29 November 2021

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 20 December 2021

3  Millward’s referral to the Authority – 24 December 2021

4  Millward’s further comments to the Authority – 15 January 2022

5  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 25 January 2022

¹ Citing Antistatic “Political Mongrels” <antistaticpartners.com>
² Standard 1, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
³ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁴ Standard 11, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁵ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
⁶ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁷ Antistatic “Political Mongrels” <antistaticpartners.com>
⁸ Guidelines 1a and 11a
⁹ Francis and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-045 at [17] citing Lowry and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-051 at [9]; and Larsen and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-055
¹⁰ See Barry Soper “Christopher Luxon's biggest mistake in first showdown with Jacinda Ardern - Barry Soper” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 8 December 2021); David Haxton “Nathan Guy signs off after 15 year political career” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 4 August 2020); David Skipwith “Lisa Adams' journey to Tokyo with sister and coach Dame Valerie Adams highlighted in new doco” (20 August 2021) Stuff <stuff.co.nz>; Reuters “Faletau lacks 'mongrel' to take on All Blacks: Zinzan” (1 May 2017) <reuters.com>; Stacey Kirk “Jacinda Ardern says she can handle it and her path to the top would suggest she's right” (1 August 2017) Stuff <stuff.co.nz>
¹¹ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may Offend in Broadcasting (June 2018) at 6
¹² See Higgins and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-022 at [10] and Jefferies and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-081 at [11] for similar conclusions on other terms
¹³ Ipsos MORI and OFCOM Public attitudes towards offensive language on TV and radio: Summary Report (September 2021)
¹⁴ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21; and Frewen and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-146B at [13]
¹⁵ Standard 6, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
¹⁶ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
¹⁷ Standard 8, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
¹⁸ Guideline 8a
¹⁹ Standard 9, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
²⁰ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
²¹ Guideline 9a