BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Warning: This decision contains language some readers may find offensive. 

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under multiple standards about an episode of “It’s Personal with Anika Moa”, including the f-word and other swear words.  In the context, including the ‘colourful language’ warning preceding the broadcast, the Authority found it was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and audiences were provided with sufficient opportunity to protect children in their care from hearing inappropriate content.  The Authority also found the swearing was unlikely to promote the behaviours contemplated under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

The broadcast

[1]  An episode of the podcast “It’s Personal with Anika Moa” on RNZ National on 28 December 2024 featured an interview with Jon Toogood, lead singer with NZ band Shihad. The episode aired late Saturday morning, 11-11.30am, in place of RNZ’s usual programming owing to the Christmas holiday period. The broadcast was preceded by the following warning:

Just a warning, this episode does have some colourful language. I would expect nothing less from this pair. Enjoy.

[2]  The interview, which lasted 27 minutes, covered Toogood’s childhood, discovering of music and the formation of Shihad. Toogood also discussed his worldview changing when he met his wife and his conversion to Islam. The death of his mother and brother-in-law during COVID-19 led to his new solo album which he described as a way of processing his grief and helping him to heal. Some uses of the f-word were bleeped out while others remained. The relevant extracts are below:

Moa:                Kia ora everybody, you're listening to It's Personal with me, Anika Moa.

… (0.37mins)

Toogood:       I (bleep) hate seeing injustice. I (bleep) hate when people with power exploit people with no power. I (bleep) hate that. So that's why I keep on making angry music.

Interview:

… (3.34mins)

Toogood:       …then I was lucky enough to have an older brother and sister that had lots of good records and some shit ones.

… (5.39mins)

Moa:               But then you went, okay, well let's do some heavy metal shit.

  … (13.14mins)

Toogood:       … she would give it to the person that was hungry on the street and didn't give a shit about that.

… (15.09mins)

Toogood:       … I was like fuck this why should I worry about you converting to what I believe.

Moa:               [How did that go down?]

Toogood:       She was like she was like fuck that.

…

Toogood:       …and I would stand up and like go, that is bullshit!

…

Toogood:       … and all that shit man just park that stuff and think about what it is you love about her.

… (18.25mins)

Toogood:       And I was actually shitting my pants because I was like, I'm not, I always like sort of walked. I mean, basically I was very insular and we just, and I know we did that and then I found out it wasn't as scary as I thought it was gonna be. And also, I slept like a baby for the first time in a while.

… (19.48mins)

Toogood:       … and all I wanted to do was hold my mum's hand for the last time, for fuck's sake, you know, and I was like...

 … (23.17mins)

Toogood:       To know that, to let your body know that they've gone, you know, like. So, it was a lot of unresolved shit.

The complaint

[3]  Grahame Hall complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, children’s interests and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis the language used was inappropriate:

• The f-word was used ‘not once, but repeatedly, whilst I was sitting in the car with family listening’.
• The unnecessary and consistent use of the f-word is unlikely to be acceptable to the average New Zealand family.
• Saturday morning is not ‘adult listening time’.
• It is an example of National Radio being ‘totally out of touch with its audience and the real world’.
• Since many will not have tuned in from the beginning, the warning about strong language at the start does not excuse this.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• Content of late morning programmes ‘is aimed at an adult audience’ and may contain ‘material that is unsuitable’ for children.
• Interviews broadcast at this time can include descriptions of ‘war and violence, accounts of evidence given in court, film and literature reviews and discussion of difficult political and societal values’.
• The broadcast was preceded by a warning that it contained strong language.
• While a broadcast containing swearing in this time period does not breach broadcasting standards, it is ‘at odds with RNZ’s internal editorial policy and the matter has been raised with the person(s) involved’.

The standards

[5]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard¹ 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.² The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

[6]  The children’s interests standard³ requires broadcasters to ensure children can be protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. Material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent or sexual content or themes, offensive language, social or domestic friction and dangerous, antisocial or illegal behaviour where such material is outside the expectations for the type of programme.⁴

[7]  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 crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.⁷

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. 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.⁸

Offensive and Disturbing Content 

[10]  Attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in a diverse society such as ours. The offensive and disturbing content standard does not prohibit the broadcast of material that is not to everyone’s taste or that some people may find challenging. Rather, it ensures that broadcasts fall within the broad limit of not causing widespread disproportionate offence or distress or seriously undermining widely shared community standards.⁹

[11]  Context is crucial for complaints made under this standard.¹⁰ We consider the following context to be relevant in this case:

• The nature of the broadcast: It’s Personal with Anika Moa is promoted by RNZ as a ‘frank and funny’ series of interviews with a diverse range of guests.¹¹ Its general format and style were unlikely to appeal to most children. The relevant episode contained six uses or variations of the f-word, (three were bleeped out) and seven of shit,  or variations. The terms were used conversationally, without aggression.
• The time of the broadcast: It occurred during children’s normally accepted listening times,¹² late Saturday morning from 11-11.30am, during the Christmas holiday period, and instead of the usual magazine style Saturday Morning programme.
• Any audience advisories/warnings: The broadcast was preceded by the following warning:
  • Just a warning, this episode does have some colourful language. I would expect nothing less from this pair. Enjoy.
• The target and likely audience: It’s Personal is targeted to an adult audience.
• Audience expectations of the programme and the channel/station: The series is known for its ‘raw and unfiltered discussions’ touching on themes like trauma, resilience and self-discovery.¹³

[12]  Also relevant to our consideration are the following factors:

• RNZ has advised It’s Personal was preceded and followed by other programmes targeted at an adult audience with gaps in the schedule ‘filled by a presenter playing music and/or other material’:
  • 10:10am TED Talk – The State of Fashion
  • 11am RNZ News
  • 11:04am It’s Personal with Anika Moa (and Jon Toogood)
  • 12:00pm RNZ Midday News  
  • 12:10pm The Best of Mapuna (Te Au Māori programme with Julian Wilcox)
• A 2021 offensive language survey by the Authority revealed 37% of respondents considered "fuck" totally unacceptable across all scenarios, compared to 39% in 2018 and 43% in 2013.¹⁴ This indicates a slight decline in perceived offensiveness.¹⁵

[13]  When broadcasters take effective steps to inform their audiences of the nature of the programme, enabling them to regulate their own and their children’s listening behaviour, they are less likely to breach this standard.¹⁶

[14]  This programme was preceded by a warning signalling the use of ‘colourful language’. This was likely to be regarded by listeners as a humorous way of saying the broadcast contains swearing and strong or crude language. It offered a ‘heads up’ to the audience without being too formal, consistent with the style of the pending programme. 

[15]  We have considered whether this warning was sufficient to signal the frequency and nature of coarse language which occurred. For some, the term ‘colourful language’ may not clearly communicate what was to come. However, on balance, given likely audience expectations of such an interview and the emphasis in the warning, ‘I would expect nothing less from this pair’, we have found the warning was sufficient to enable the audience to exercise appropriate choice and control over what they listened to.

[16]  Overall, although more care and consistency could have been taken by RNZ in editing the content – noting the f-word was bleeped out in places and not in others and considering the factors outlined above, the broadcast is not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community interests.

Children’s Interests

[17]  The focus of the children’s interests standard is on harm that may be unique to children; content that could be considered harmful to children may not be harmful or unexpected when considering the audience in general. Therefore, the children’s interests standard may be more rigorous than the offensive and disturbing content standard.¹⁷

[18]  The context mentioned in paragraphs [11] and [12] above are also relevant here. While the broadcast was within children’s normally accepted listening times, it was a programme targeted at adults aired within a line-up of other adult targeted programmes. This lessened the likelihood children would be listening unattended. The warning, as noted in paragraph [15], could have used less ambiguous language given the f-word featured unbleeped three times. However, for similar reasons to those outlined above, we consider it would have provided audiences sufficient opportunity to protect children in their care from hearing inappropriate content.

[19]  In the circumstances we do not uphold the complaint under the children’s interests standard, on the basis no actual or potential harm has been caused to child listeners which justifies regulatory intervention.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[20]  The standard is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine or promote disobedience of the law or legal processes.¹⁸

[21]  The complainant has alleged the broadcast used language inappropriate for a late Saturday morning, when families may be listening.

[22]  We do not consider swearing is likely to promote the behaviours contemplated under the standard.  On this basis we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

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

Aroha Beck
Acting Chair
26 May 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Hall’s original complaint - 10 January 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 18 February 2025

3  Hall’s response to RNZ’s decision – 7 March 2025

4  Hall’s referral to the Authority – 7 March 2025

5  RNZ’s further comments – 10 April 2025

6  RNZ no further comment – 2 May 2025

¹ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
³ Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Guideline 2.2
⁵ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁷ Guideline 3.1
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹⁰ Guideline 1.1
¹¹ Radio New Zealand Ltd “It’s Personal with Anika Moa” <rnz.co.nz/video>  
¹² Guideline 2.1
¹³ Radio New Zealand Ltd “It’s Personal with Anika Moa” <rnz.co.nz/video>
¹⁴ Broadcasting Standards Authority (17 February 2022) “Language that may offend in broadcasting” <bsa.govt.nz> at page 11
¹⁵ As above at page 8
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹⁷ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
¹⁸ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11