BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

In a Newstalk ZB interview, Ryan Bridge spoke with New Zealand actress Luciane Buchanan about her lead role in the popular Netflix show The Night Agent. While discussing the casting process during COVID-19 lockdown, Buchanan admitted to breaking lockdown bubble rules to rehearse for her audition. Bridge said he was ‘glad’ she did so, given her success, and remarked rules were ‘made to be broken’. The complainant said the comments breached the offensive and disturbing content, and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. While recognising the comments may offend some listeners, the Authority found they did not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency. It also concluded that although the comments could be interpreted as condoning Buchanan’s actions, they were unlikely, in the context, to incite others to break the law or ‘promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour’ as contemplated by the standard.  

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

The broadcast

[1]  On 23 January 2025, during a segment on Newstalk ZB, Ryan Bridge interviewed actress Luciane Buchanan about her experience as a New Zealander starring in the popular Netflix series The Night Agent, and her rise to international fame.

[2]  Bridge opened the segment as follows:

Right now, though, our next talented guest is somewhat of a breakout star. Kiwi actress Luciane Buchanan started her rise to fame in New Zealand in her teens, but since 2022, her career has really started taking off, especially with her lead role in Netflix's The Night Agent. If you haven't seen it, it's brilliant. Go and watch it. It was the most watched show on Netflix globally in 2023, and now she's back starring alongside Jason Momoa in the upcoming mini-series Chief of War that’s on Apple TV+…

[3]  The interview continues with Buchanan recounting her experience practising with another New Zealand actress for an audition and saying, ‘we did a Zoom read-through [because] of Covid’.

[4]  Later in the interview, Bridge asked Buchanan about the process she had to go through for the audition:

Bridge:             Luciane, you got the gig during lockdown here in New Zealand, so we were in quite a hard lockdown in New Zealand. And you did that, I'm assuming, over Zoom or over the internet. How did that go?

Buchanan:       Oh gosh. It was the craziest thing. Like I didn't think I was going to get it … I was flatting in Mount Roskill with two of my high school best friends. I called a friend over. We broke the rules, sorry Jacinda, at the time, and snuck him into my place because he's such a good person to read my auditions with and I needed a guy to read against…

[5]  After Buchanan’s response about the casting process, the following discussion took place:

Bridge:             Well, I'm glad you broke the lockdown rules. Now, you're probably one of the most viewed Kiwi actresses that have ever lived.

Buchanan:       [laughs] …sometimes you got to risk it all, you know?

Bridge:             Rules are made to be broken…

The complaint

[6]  Pam Mayes complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, and the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• Buchanan breaking lockdown rules ‘was endorsed by the broadcaster [and] was offensive after what people had to endure [during] COVID-19 lockdown times.’
• Bridge ‘breached standards by his comments and [endorsed] her illegal activity by saying he was glad she violated community norms’ while lockdowns were in place.
• Bridge promoted illegal activity, and made it appear as if breaking the law was a ‘good thing.’

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  NZME Radio Limited (NZME) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• Buchanan’s passing comment about breaching lockdown restrictions by inviting a friend into her home to rehearse lines does not reach the relatively high level of offence required for a breach of the offensive and disturbing content standard.  
• The comments in the interview did not seriously violate community norms, taking into consideration the overall context of the broadcast and audience expectations.
• ‘Neither Mr Bridge or Ms Buchanan made light of the lockdown restrictions or made any comment which dismissed how difficult that time was for many people. The conversation was light-hearted and well intentioned.’
• Bridge and Buchanan were discussing past lockdown restrictions which are no longer in place.
• ‘The comments must be viewed in the unique context of global lockdown restrictions and the way they impacted a New Zealand-based actress auditioning for a role in a US-based Netflix show.’
• Buchanan expressed an apology for her actions.
• While Bridge did not condemn Buchanan’s actions, neither of them encouraged listeners to break any law or act in a seriously antisocial manner. There was no ‘specific call to action’ which might have encouraged the audience to break the law or promoted or glamorised disobedience with the law generally.

The standards

[8]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard (Standard 1) is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts 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.

[9]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard (Standard 3) is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.³ The standard states:⁴

Broadcast content should not be likely to promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour taking into account the context and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control.

Our analysis

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

[11]  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 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

[12]  We are conscious of the sacrifices made by and serious impacts on many New Zealanders, including the complainant, during nationwide lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Given this background, we appreciate the comments in the broadcast will offend some listeners. However, we have concluded any potential harm created by the comments did not reach a threshold sufficient to justify our intervention.

Offensive and disturbing content

[13]  This standard regulates broadcasts that contain sexual material, nudity, violence or coarse language, or other material likely to cause offence or distress.⁶ The context in which such content occurs, and the wider context of the broadcast are important when assessing whether a broadcast has breached standards.

[14]  The context to be considered is:

• Newstalk ZB is targeted at adults aged 40 to 59 years old.⁷
• The Breakfast Show is a live radio programme which broadcasts news and current affairs.
• The audience expects NZME will, at times, broadcast controversial or unpopular opinions.⁸
• The interview was not about COVID-19. It was focused on the experiences of a New Zealand actress and ‘break out star’ whose career had ‘really started taking off’ from her lead role in a top-performing Netflix show, into its second season, and her role in another series coming to Apple TV+.
• The commentary about breaking lockdown rules was a brief part of the overall interview.
• Buchanan said ‘sorry Jacinda’ when admitting to breaching lockdown rules. Earlier in the interview, Buchanan mentioned a ‘Zoom read-through [because] of COVID’ as an example of appropriate adjustment to the pandemic risk.

[15]  We acknowledge the comments about breaking lockdown rules will be offensive to some people, particularly those who were personally affected in significant ways by the lockdowns. The comments do reflect some violation of community standards.

[16]  However, in the context above, we do not consider the brief comments reflected a serious violation of community standards of taste and decency or would disproportionately offend or disturb the audience as contemplated under the standard. They were not the focus of the interview. There was no criticism of the lockdown regime or suggestion it was unjustified by the risks. Buchanan’s ‘sorry Jacinda’ comment demonstrated recognition she had acted inappropriately. In the circumstances, Bridge’s subsequent comments about being ‘glad’ Buchanan broke bubble rules and ‘rules are made to be broken’, are likely to be seen as a light-hearted response to Buchanan’s admission and apology for breaking the rules, rather than an attempt to criticise or undermine the importance of public health measures.   

[17]  Any harm likely to arise from such comments does not justify our intervention and a corresponding restriction on freedom of expression.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[18]  The purpose of this standard is to prevent broadcasts from encouraging audiences to break the law or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.

[19]  The standard is concerned with broadcasts which actively undermine or promote disobedience of the law or legal processes. Antisocial activity refers to serious antisocial activity contrary to the laws or customs of society to such a degree where a significant number of people would find it unacceptable. It involves actions which are likely to have consequences for people in the real world.⁹ 

[20]  In this case, the complainant was concerned the host’s comments ‘I’m glad you broke lockdown rules,’ and ‘rules are made to be broken,’ promoted illegal behaviour and endorsed breaking COVID-19 bubble rules. We also note Buchanan’s comment during this section of the interview, ‘sometimes you got to risk it all’.

[21]  Direct incitement to break the law is likely to breach this standard, if there is a real likelihood the audience will act on it. In some cases, broadcasts which condone criminal activity or present it as positive or humorous may have the effect of a direct incitement to break the law.¹⁰ We accept Bridge’s comments can be seen as condoning or making Buchanan’s choice to break lockdown rules appear positive, particularly his comment, ‘I’m glad you broke the lockdown rules. Now you’re probably one of the most viewed Kiwi actresses who’ve ever lived’.

[22]  However, in the context, the comments were unlikely to incite others to break the law or ‘promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour’ as contemplated by the standard. Context, and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control, are crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.¹¹ Within the context of the broadcast, Bridge’s comments were brief light-hearted responses highlighting Buchanan’s acting success rather than any general encouragement to disobey lockdown rules. The comments were directed in response to Buchanan’s past actions. They were not a commentary on the merits of observing public health rules.

[23]  Additionally, in the broadcast, Bridge acknowledged the difficulty of COVID-19 lockdowns in stating, ‘We were in quite a hard lockdown in New Zealand’. Buchanan also apologised immediately after admitting she broke lockdown rules saying, ‘we broke the rules, sorry Jacinda, at the time’ and had, earlier in the broadcast, referred neutrally and uncritically to holding ‘Zoom read-throughs’, as an example of appropriate adjustment to the risks posed by COVID-19. These statements also help prevent listeners from misinterpreting subsequent remarks as encouragement to ignore public health measures.

[24]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint.

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  Mayes’s original complaint – 26 January 2025

2  NZME’s decision – 25 February 2025

3  Mayes’s response to NZME decision – 25 February 2025

4  Mayes’s referral to the Authority – 26 February 2025

5  NZME’s further comments – 14 March 2025

6  Mayes’s further comments – 17 March 2025

7  NZME’s confirmation of no further comments – 17 March 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 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁴ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 1.1
⁷ See NZME Holdings Limited “NZME Audio” (2024) NZME <nzme.co.nz>
⁸ See Lane and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-033 at [9] for a similar finding
⁹ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 11
¹¹ Guideline 3.1