BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

A majority of the Authority has upheld a complaint that a message read out during Easter Monday Afternoon with Francesca on Newstalk ZB breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The host had invited discussion on US President Donald Trump’s threats of escalation as part of the US-Iran conflict. The message read: ‘Israel is running the show and 80% of advisers around Trump are Jews. A Jew gifted $250 million to Trump personally at his electioneering time and he took it happily. Rubio is heavily linked to the Jewish community and society.’ The majority noted the broadcaster’s ability to exercise editorial control, community expectations around discriminatory content and the real and serious harms that can result from antisemitic tropes. It found the message clearly evoked negative tropes about Jewish people, and reading it out with no challenge served to embed these negative stereotypes. A minority of the Authority found any potential harm from the comment did not reach the high threshold required to justify regulatory intervention. In the context, the minority found it was unlikely to carry influence or authority of a nature likely to promote the antisemitic trope among listeners.

Upheld By Majority: Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  On Easter Monday (6 April 2026), Newstalk ZB broadcast a programme called Easter Monday Afternoon with Francesca.

[2]  The topic of talkback discussion was United States President Donald Trump’s threats of escalation as part of the US-Iran conflict. The host said:

We have been talking about President Donald Trump. He has drawn a lot of criticism with his expletive-laden rant on Iran over Easter. This was his Easter Sunday post that he put up, it said, 'Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it! Open the bleep strait, you crazy bleeps, or you'll be living in hell – just watch! Praise be to Allah. President Donald J. Trump'. So, this was quite a sort of a terse follow up and the deadline for Iran to comply is about 12pm New Zealand time on Tuesday. So, the question I've been asking is, do aggressive, expletive-laden posts actually help us to come to the negotiating table to get the Strait of Hormuz opened? Is it a move in the right direction? I think it very much signals a resolve to his domestic audience, but I think that it hardens a position that an adversary like Iran will have. It reduces diplomatic flexibility. You know, it's harder to walk back from a public threat, isn't it? And look, we know that Iran likes to do things via quietly via back channels and they like face-saving compromises and reciprocal steps. So, this style is more about deterrent signalling than actually probably reopening this waterway. So, the question I've been asking is, do you like this more aggressive approach? Is this going to get the Strait of Hormuz situation sorted quicker than diplomacy? Which is what you're seeing with Keir Starmer, and 39 other nations sort of coming together in a coalition to diplomatically negotiate the opening of the Strait.

[3]  Over the next half an hour or so, the host took calls from people giving their opinions on a range of matters related to this topic, including the implications on petrol and gas prices as a result of the conflict, how the New Zealand Government was responding, and how Trump should or might move forward with the conflict.

[4]  The host then read out several text messages received on the topic. One was:

Israel is running the show and 80% of advisers around Trump are Jews. A Jew gifted $250 million to Trump personally at his electioneering time and he took it happily. Rubio is heavily linked to the Jewish community and society.

[5]  The host did not make any comment on this message, and proceeded to read out further messages, including:

a)  ‘The motivation is peace in the Middle East.’

b)  ‘Hi, yes, swearing per se is a coping mechanism, but should be recognised as temporary or to be grown out of like any other coping mechanism.’ 

c)  ‘What the US and Israel have done is totally unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. Israel is no better than Iran as far as I am concerned.’ 

d)  ‘I believe Trump will bomb the bridges and power plants. Trump is a man of his word. If Trump says he's going to do something, Trump does what he says. Trump is not a man who bluffs. Trump said he would do everything in his power to save the second military gunman, who came down in the Strike Eagle. Trump is definitely a man of his word, never doubt Trump, especially when it comes to his military.’

The complaint

[6]  Arthur Jacobson complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  ‘One of the definitions of antisemitism set out by the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance]¹ is "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions." The text read out by [the] host was squarely within this definition.’ New Zealand is an Observer of the IHRA.

b)  ‘This is the narrative/tropes propagated by the Nazis,’ and which has led to continuing acts of violence against Jewish people in the current day.

c)  ‘Importantly, [the host reading out the message] was not inadvertent and there was no rebuttal. It was a text read by the presenter as if it was just another run of the mill, valid point of view concerning the topic under discussion.’

d)  ‘New Zealand has reached a turning point where vile antisemitic tropes can be treated as just another run of the mill contribution to a talk back broadcast […]’

e)  If other ethnic groups had been referenced in a similar way, this would have been treated more seriously.

[7]  On referral, the complainant sought to raise the offensive and disturbing content standard as also being breached. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider complaints under the standards raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster.² A standard does not necessarily have to be raised explicitly if it can be reasonably implied into the wording, and if it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.³ Jacobson’s original complaint only explicitly raised the discrimination and denigration standard, and his arguments directly related to that standard – ie that the message read out was antisemitic and racist. We do not consider the complaint could be interpreted as engaging the offensive and disturbing content standard more generally. On this basis, we only consider the complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  NZME Radio Ltd (NZME) did not uphold the complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard for the following reasons:

a)  ‘Jewish people are a recognised section of the community for the purposes of this standard, and we acknowledge the seriousness of concerns relating to anti-Semitic stereotypes and conspiracy narratives. We also acknowledge that elements of the listener text [the complainant referred to] reflect tropes that are widely recognised as anti-Semitic.’

b)  ‘However, broadcast context is an important consideration. Talkback radio is an opinion-based genre. The comments arose during a talkback programme discussing international political events, in which the host read out a series of listener texts expressing differing viewpoints.’

c)  ‘Listeners reasonably expect that third-party views may be relayed, particularly where comments are read briefly and without editorial commentary or endorsement. In this case, the views expressed were not presented as fact, nor as reflecting the position of the host or station.’

d)  ‘The comments were not repeated, emphasised, or elaborated on, and there was no encouragement of hostility, discrimination, or contempt toward Jewish people.’

e)  ‘In these circumstances, the broadcast simply relayed audience feedback within a talkback format, rather than advancing or promoting the substance of the comment.’

f)  ‘The Broadcasting Standards Authority has consistently recognised that the threshold for a breach of [the standard] is high, particularly in light of the importance of freedom of expression. Accordingly, material will generally need to reach a high level of condemnation, often involving malice or nastiness, to breach [the standard]. We do not consider that is present here.’

g)  ‘Taking into account the talkback context, the fact that the remarks were third-party comments, the brief and unelaborated nature of the remarks, the absence of endorsement, and the absence of malice, we do not consider that the broadcast met the threshold required to breach [the standard].’

[9]  NZME did, however, recognise that such a comment may cause genuine offence, and accepted greater care may be warranted when handling listener contributions on sensitive topics. It advised it had passed the complainant’s feedback on to the station’s content director for consideration in future broadcasts.

The standard

[10]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality.⁴ The standard states:⁵

Broadcast content should not encourage 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.

Our analysis

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

[12]  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 it. 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.⁶

[13]  Under the relevant standard, ‘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.⁷

[14]  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.⁸

[15]  The Authority was not unanimous in its decision on whether the broadcast breached the standard, with the majority (Chair Susie Staley and Aroha Beck) finding a breach, and the minority (John Gillespie and Karyn Fenton-Ellis) finding no breach. The reasoning of the majority and minority are set out below.

Majority view (Chair Susie Staley, Aroha Beck)

[16]  The complainant has said the relevant message contained antisemitic tropes and reinforced negative stereotypes about Jewish people. He has pointed to one of the IHRA’s examples of antisemitism (of which New Zealand is an Observer). The IHRA notes that one of the ‘contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life’ is:⁹

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

[17]  Jewish people constitute a section of the community for the purpose of the standard.

[18]  The Authority has previously upheld complaints about a 1News reporter describing the owners of the road cycling team ‘Israel Start-up Nation’ as being ‘backed by Jewish billionaires’,¹⁰ and a radio host’s comment that ‘Hollywood was run by Jewish people,’¹¹ on the basis these statements had the effect of embedding antisemitic stereotypes that a collective of rich Jewish people exercise inappropriate power behind-the-scenes. These decisions were informed by independent cultural advice from Emeritus Professor Paul Morris in Waxman and Television New Zealand Ltd,¹² including specific advice about negative stereotypes based on conspiracy theories:

‘Jewish billionaires’ and the extent of their influence is one of the leading and most frequently repeated of antisemitic tropes. Very often mention of ‘Jewish billionaires’ – as if they are a discernible, connected and coherent collective – suggests the exercise of dominating and controlling power, both in the specified arenas and beyond to society at large. Such tropes are integral to modern and contemporary forms of antisemitism.

[19]  As recognised in these cases, real harm can result from the propagation of such narratives and tropes about Jewish people.

[20]  The context of a broadcast is crucial in assessing whether it breached broadcasting standards. Contextual factors particularly relevant under the discrimination and denigration standard are:¹³

a)  the language and tone used

b)  the forum in which the comments were made

c)  whether the comments were repeated or sustained, or corrected or rebutted

d)  whether the comments made a legitimate contribution to a wider debate or carried public interest.

[21]  The following contextual factors are relevant here:

a)  The message was read out briefly by the host in a neutral manner.

b)  The message was from an audience member – it was not conveyed as the host’s views.

c)  The host did not engage with or comment on the message, and promptly continued reading other messages.

d)  The message was only one of multiple items of audience feedback – of varying quality and relevance – shared on the programme.

e)  The broadcast was a talkback radio programme. Our Codebook states: ‘Talkback is an opinionated environment and is granted some latitude to be provocative and edgy in the interests of robust debate.’¹⁴

f)  The topic of talkback conversation was Trump’s threats of escalation as part of the US-Iran conflict. The host did not solicit comment about Jewish people or provoke discussion in an inflammatory way.

g)  There were no other references to Jewish people in the discussion surrounding the part of the broadcast complained of.

h)  The message did not make a legitimate contribution to the conversation or carry public interest.

[22]  In this context, our decision is finely balanced. However, we consider the comment complained about carried the clear implication that Jewish people as a collective were wielding control and influence over the US Government, squarely reflecting the antisemitic trope described by Emeritus Professor Morris in Waxman, and by the IHRA, of Jewish people being a ‘dominating and controlling power’. It referenced Israel ‘running the show’ (ie the US Government) and included examples of the alleged influence Jewish people were exerting – 80% of Trump’s advisers being Jewish, a large donation to Trump’s election campaign, and the Jewish community’s ties to the US Secretary of State. Its blunt language – ‘a Jew gifted…’ – could also be seen as suggestive of negative connotations towards the Jewish community.

[23]  Reading the message with no challenge or rebuttal had the effect of reinforcing and embedding this negative trope. It meant the comments were presented to listeners as a legitimate contribution to the discussion.

[24]  As a body that regulates according to community standards, we must be conscious of community expectations. Previous public criticism of the Authority’s decision not to uphold a complaint about the use of ‘Jew’ as a slur led the Authority to reassess and adjust the threshold previously required for a breach finding, acknowledging that even where there is a lack of malice from the broadcaster, comments that reinforce or embed negative stereotypes can still carry a potential for harm.¹⁵ There is no suggestion New Zealanders are any more tolerant of such content today. Our latest offensive language research found racial slurs and terms targeting specific communities continue to be seen as the least acceptable language.¹⁶

[25]  A distinguishing feature of this case is the comment was made by an audience member rather than the host. This is a mitigating factor to some degree. However, it was not a live environment where listeners might expect rogue comments to slip through – ie the host had an opportunity to read the comment in advance and decide it was not appropriate. In our view, the decision to read the comment, without challenge, conferred a level of societal acceptance which is similar to the impact of the host’s own words.

[26]  Broadcasters should be alert to such tropes and stereotypes about sections of the community. This is especially the case when discussing sensitive topics such as international conflicts and US politics. The promulgation of such tropes is dangerous. Even if they go over the heads of most listeners, they can serve as a ‘dog whistle’ to vulnerable individuals and extremists (feeding into conspiracy theories).

[27]  The harm that can result is readily apparent. The Human Rights Commission | Te Kāhui Tika Tangata notes reports of antisemitism have been on the rise in New Zealand, particularly since the Israel-Hamas conflict began in 2023.¹⁷ A recent study found antisemitic violence worldwide killed the highest number of Jewish people in 30 years.¹⁸ We can reasonably expect better of our broadcasters in this environment.

[28]  Taking into account the nature of the comments (however brief), the broadcaster’s ability to exercise editorial control in this situation, and the real and serious harm that can result from embedding such tropes about Jewish people, we uphold the complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard.

Minority view (John Gillespie and Karyn Fenton-Ellis)

[29]  We agree this case is finely balanced. It would have been preferable for the host not to read the message – or to offer some mitigating comments afterwards. Overall, however, we reached the view that the potential harm from this broadcast did not reach the high threshold required under the standard to justify regulatory intervention.

[30]  While we acknowledge some will have found the message offensive, its content was not explicitly condemnatory. It was suggestive, but its meaning was not overt. This, combined with its brevity, the fact it was one of many items of audience feedback shared, was unsolicited by the host, and was not engaged with or referred to again, leads us to conclude that any potential harm does not reach the high threshold required for a breach of the standard. For us, these factors distinguish this case from the Waxman and Lerner decisions cited by the majority, noting particularly that the message was from one audience member rather than a reporter or programme host. In the context, it was unlikely to carry influence or authority of a nature likely to promote the antisemitic trope among listeners.

[31]  The forum in which the comment was made, a radio talkback programme, is also a relevant contextual factor. This does not mean talkback radio programmes have free rein to broadcast discriminatory or denigrating opinions about groups of people merely because of the nature of the platform. But we do acknowledge that in a live talkback environment it can be difficult for the host to screen messages and react appropriately.

[32]  We also recognise the broadcaster has accepted greater care may be warranted when handling listener contributions on sensitive topics and has taken steps to avoid comments like this being broadcast in the future.

[33]  In all the circumstances, we do not consider regulatory intervention is required in this case.

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by NZME Radio Ltd of Easter Monday Afternoon with Francesca on Newstalk ZB on 6 April 2026 breached Standard 4 (Discrimination and Denigration) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

[34]  Having upheld the complaint, we may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We have concluded no order is warranted in this case. This is on the basis our decision was not unanimous, and publication of the decision is sufficient to: publicly notify the breach of the discrimination and denigration standard and censure the broadcaster; and to provide guidance to NZME and other broadcasters regarding the need for consideration and care to be taken to avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
11 August 2026  

 
Appendix

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

1  Jacobson’s original complaint – 6 April 2026

2  NZME’s decision – 5 May 2026

3  Jacobson’s referral to Authority – 6 May 2026

4  NZME’s further comments – 21 May 2026

5  Jacobson’s further comments – 25 May 2026

6  NZME’s confirmation of no further comment – 25 May 2026

¹ International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working definition of antisemitism” <holocaustremembrance.com>
² Broadcasting Act 1989, s 8(1B)
³ See Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁴ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁵ Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁷ Guideline 4.1: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁸ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁹ International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working definition of antisemitism” <holocaustremembrance.com>
¹⁰ Waxman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-042
¹¹ Lerner and Mediaworks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-091
¹² Decision No. 2020-042
¹³ Guideline 4.3: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁴ Guideline 1.2: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁵ See Greetham and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2019-059 and Waxman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-042 at [10] and [12]
¹⁶ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language That May Offend in Broadcasting (17 November 2025) at page 10
¹⁷ Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission “The growing issue of antisemitism in New Zealand” (last updated: 4 April 2025) <tikatangata.org.nz>
¹⁸ Oren Liebermann “Antisemitic violence worldwide in 2025 killed highest number of Jews in 30 years, study finds” CNN (online ed, 15 April 2026)