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 an item on Morning Report, which discussed efforts to increase diversity in local government bodies. The complainant considered the comment ‘pale, male and stale’ made during the broadcast was derogatory towards older white men, and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found the comments did not meet the high threshold required to breach the standard and justify restricting the right to freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

Broadcast

[1]  An item on Morning Report broadcast on RNZ National on 9 May 2022 included an interview with the Chief Executive of Local Government New Zealand. Host Susie Ferguson questioned the Chief Executive about diversity issues in local government elections, including the question ‘So how bad is the problem, if that is the right word for it, of pale, male and stale in local government?’

The complaint

[2]  Glyn Thomas complained that the broadcast contained derogatory references toward older white men and breached the discrimination and denigration standard, stating that:

• ‘Susie Ferguson used the term "male, pale and stale" when discussing the composition of local bodies. This clearly discriminates on the basis of gender, ethnicity and age, and is clearly designed to denigrate older "white" males. It is a breach of standard 6a.’
• ‘Just because a term is a "popular epithet" does not make it acceptable.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Radio New Zealand Ltd did not uphold this complaint on the basis that:

• ‘It is unclear how Ms Ferguson, through a relatively casual use of a popular figure of speech has caused any substantive harm to the reputation of all older, white men in the community.’
• A high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice and nastiness, is necessary to conclude that the discrimination and denigration standard has been breached. RNZ did not accept that the comments in the broadcast reached this threshold.
• The standard ‘is not designed to prevent the broadcast of material that is a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion.’
• The context of the comment was a discussion about lack of diversity.

The standard

[4]  The discrimination and denigration standard¹ protects against broadcasts which encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, 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. It protects sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and fosters a community commitment to equality. Guideline 6c states the standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion; nor legitimate humour, drama or satire.

Our analysis

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

[6]  We have also considered the important right to freedom of expression, which is our starting point. This includes the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of ideas, information and opinions and the public’s right to receive those. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the broadcast has caused actual or potential harm at a level that outweighs the right to freedom of expression.

[7]  As noted above, the standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material that is factual, a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion, or legitimate humour, drama or satire.² The statement complained about was part of a question asked during an interview on a matter of significant public interest – a lack of diversity in local government.

[8]  We acknowledge the complainant found the comments in the broadcast offensive. However, the Codebook recognises that comments will not breach the discrimination and denigration standard simply because they are critical of another group, because they offend people, or because they are rude.³ The importance of freedom of expression means that a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to find a breach of the standard.⁴ In this context, we do not agree the question encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community.⁵

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

Susie Staley
Chair
23 August 2022

Appendix

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

1  Glyn Thomas’s complaint to RNZ – 9 May 2022

2  RNZ’s response to Thomas – 9 June 2022

3  Thomas’s referral to the Authority – 9 June 2022

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 16 June 2022

¹ Standard 6 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Guideline 6c
³ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
⁴ Guideline 6b
⁵ See also Hall & Large and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-061, for a similar finding