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 about a Midday Report segment on Charlie Kirk’s death, which included a recording of Kirk’s final interaction and the gunshot which killed him. The complainant considered it offensive and lacking in decency to broadcast Kirk’s final moments. In the context, including comments alerting listeners to the pending content, the Authority found it was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the Midday Report audience. Those who did not wish to listen were given a reasonable opportunity to turn the programme off. Noting the significant public interest in the segment, the Authority also found no harm justifying its intervention to limit the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. The privacy standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Privacy

The broadcast

[1]  The 11 September 2025 broadcast of Midday Report included an item about the assassination of American political activist Charlie Kirk who was shot during a public question and answer session at a Utah university campus earlier that day. The segment was introduced by the Midday Report host and led by a Washington DC correspondent:

Midday Report host:             We'll go to some international news because in the words of Donald Trump, the great and even legendary Charlie Kirk is dead. US right-wing activist and commentator Charlie Kirk is an influential ally of President Donald Trump and was shot fatally in the neck at a Utah University. US authorities say they're searching thoroughly for security camera footage to try and identify the suspect in the fatal shooting. A Washington DC correspondent … is with me now. Tēnā koe [correspondent], what has happened here in the past few hours?

Correspondent:                    Well, this has been an absolutely seismic and shocking event for the United States since the news first was reported... Charlie Kirk was there, kicking off a national tour that he was calling the ‘Prove Me Wrong’ tour. He was basically challenging his critics to try and shake his unshakable faith in the core principles and policies that animate Donald Trump's 'Make America Great' movement and absolutely animated Charlie Kirk, who had become, over the past 12 or 13 years, a pivotal figure…

[2]  The Washington DC correspondent provided a brief summary of the situation prior to the event, followed by a recording of the interaction between Kirk and the audience member moments before the gunshot.

Correspondent:                     And as that event got underway, about 20 minutes into it, a member of the audience actually did start to challenge Charlie Kirk about statements he'd made in the past blaming mass shootings on transgender Americans. These were the final moments of Charlie Kirk's life as he was questioned by that audience member.

[Recording of interaction starts]

Audience member:               Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last ten years?

Charlie Kirk:                          Too many [crowd cheers].

Audience member:               It’s five okay. Now five is a lot, right? I’m going to give you some credit. Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last ten years?

Charlie Kirk:                          Counting or not counting gang violence?

[Gunshot fires and crowd gasps]

[Recording of interaction ends]

[3]  The Washington DC correspondent concluded the segment with the following:

And you heard there that single crack, that single gunshot that struck Charlie Kirk in the neck and proved fatal, and it was clear from video that was taken at the scene and distributed on social media that the wounds were extremely grave and that the chances of him surviving that single gunshot were very, very slim. President Trump announced his death on social media.

There has been confusion about whether a suspect has been taken into custody or not — certainly at least one person has been questioned about the attack, possibly two. We saw one man being taken away by police after claiming that he had been the shooter, although police even at the time said they weren't sure whether he really was. Just within the last few minutes, the FBI director has confirmed that the person of interest that he had said was in custody has been released and that the manhunt continues for whoever was responsible for this attack. And that is causing an even greater chill all over the country tonight because the motivation for this assassination remains unclear, the assailant appears still to be on the loose and that is causing grave concern of course in Utah itself as a public safety issue.

But it's also worrying politicians from all sides of the political aisle here, who have witnessed this rising tide, this epidemic of political violence in the United States over the last several years, and in the case of Charlie Kirk have seen one of the most prominent figures in Donald Trump's inner circle, removed from the field of play in this seemingly calculated and devastating way.  

The complaint

[4]  Michael Gibbs complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content and privacy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• The complainant was ‘immediately shocked’ that Midday Report was going to broadcast Charlie Kirk’s final moments.
• ‘[H]earing a live broadcast of a person’s dying words in what would be to me a voyeuristic manner is not news … As far as I am concerned it is not in good taste, and it lacks decency.’
• ‘It does not respect the privacy of a dying person.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘Mr Kirk’s shocking and tragic death is the latest and most dramatic escalation in a political divide that has emerged in the United States and is being observed around the world. Responsible public broadcasting demands proper journalistic attention be paid to such significant events. The public interest strongly favours publication over censorship.’
• ‘Both Mr Kirk’s public statement and the method of his demise were in the public domain throughout.’
• Midday Report is ‘aimed at an adult audience and expects any children listening will be under adult supervision’.
• The RNZ correspondent ‘prefaced the audio with a statement that the audio of questions and answers about mass shootings in America comprised “the final moments of Charlie Kirk’s life”.’

The standards

[6]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard (standard 1) is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.¹ The standard states:²

• 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.

[7]  The purpose of the privacy standard (standard 7) is to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public.³ The standard states:⁴

Broadcasters should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual.

Our analysis

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

[9]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. This includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer ideas and information and a range of programmes, and the audience’s right to receive those. 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 where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁵

Offensive and disturbing content

[10]  The context of a broadcast is crucial to our assessment of potential harm under the offensive and disturbing content standard, including the steps taken by the broadcaster to inform audiences of the nature of the programme. We consider the following contextual factors were relevant in this case:

a)  Midday Report is an unclassified lunchtime ‘up-to-the-minute’ news and current affairs programme aimed at an adult audience.⁶   

b)  The introduction noted Kirk was ‘shot fatally in the neck at a Utah University’, while the Washington DC correspondent provided detailed commentary of the events leading up to the shooting. The correspondent then noted, ‘These were the final moments of Charlie Kirk’s life as he was questioned by that audience member.’

c)  The segment carried significant public interest due to Kirk’s high political profile. As RNZ observed, the killing was a ‘dramatic escalation in a political divide that has emerged in the United States and is being observed around the world’.

d)  The shooting excerpt was pre-recorded and included the audio of the gunshot and gasps from the audience before it was cut off.

e)  The programme was broadcast on radio and violence generally has more impact when depicted visually, eg on television.⁷ 

[11]  While broadcasters should take reasonable care to minimise potential harm, news programmes by their nature often include disturbing and challenging material that is reflective of the world we live in.⁸ The Authority has previously found that broadcasters are not expected to shield audiences from violent or tragic events, which unfortunately do take place.⁹  

[12]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concern that audio of a person’s last moments may be confronting and offensive. However, in the context above, we do not consider the broadcast seriously violated community standards of taste and decency or would have disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience of Midday Report.

[13]  In addition, where broadcasters take effective steps to inform audiences of the nature of the programme, we are less likely to find a breach.¹⁰ In this case, the subject matter of the item (Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier that day) was clearly signposted by the Midday Report host during the story’s introduction. The recording of the incident was also prefaced by, ‘These were the final moments of Charlie Kirk's life as he was questioned by that audience member.’ This alerted listeners to the pending content, giving them a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they wished to continue listening or not. Those who did not wish to listen could, as the complainant did, turn the programme off.

[14]  Noting the significant public interest in the segment, we have identified no harm sufficient to justify our intervention to limit the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard.

Privacy

[15]  The privacy standard applies only to identifiable living individuals.¹¹ The Authority has previously found complaints concerning the privacy of a deceased individual cannot be considered under this standard.¹² The privacy standard therefore does not apply to this complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
17 December 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Gibbs’s original complaint – 14 September 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 16 September 2025

3  Gibbs’s referral to the Authority – 24 September 2025

4  Gibbs’s additional comments – 3 October 2025

5  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 6 October 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
⁴ Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ “About Midday Report” RNZ <rnz.co.nz>
⁷ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁸ Williamson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-010 at [11]; Maysmor and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-048 at [13]; and Lewis and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-069 at [14]
⁹ See Ross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-042 at [20]; and Torrey & Mayell and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-102 at [20]
¹⁰ Guideline 1.3
¹¹ Guideline 7.1
¹² See, for example: FV and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-004 at [15]; and Kung Purser and Media Bay of Plenty Ltd, Decision No. 2023-087 at [5]