Last month a formal complaint was sent to NZME Radio after The BFD broke the story about Newstalk ZB trying to cover up the shocking behaviour of their on-air guest Mary Lambie.
“If all Trump supporters injected themselves with disinfectant, it would not be a bad thing.”
Mary Lambie
Rather than apologise for her behaviour to their audience, management instead decided to pretend that it hadn’t happened and sent the audio down the memory hole but not before The BFD obtained and published a copy.
After the publication of our article, one of our readers sent a formal complaint to NZME Radio which they recently responded to. Interestingly, the action of memory holing the audio was not seen as a cover-up by NZME radio but as the actions of a responsible broadcaster. However, they did find in favour of the complainant on the breach of two of the four standards complained about. They were:
- Good Taste and Decency
- Discrimination and denigration
Their official response to our reader’s complaint is below.
Dear [redacted]
Re: The Weekend Collective – Saturday 25 April 2020 at 3:48pm
I handle formal complaints for NZME Radio and yours has been forwarded to me for deliberation.
You have complained under Standard 1 (Good Taste and Decency), 4 (Violence), 5 (Law and Order) and 6 (Discrimination and Denigration) of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.
In the broadcast complained of, the panel were discussing the following well-publicised statement on 23 April by President Trump regarding a possible treatment for COVID-19:
And then I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute – is there a way we can do something like that, by injection, inside, or almost a cleaning? Cos you see it gets in the lungs and does a tremendous number. So it would be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me …
In conversation about this, Tim Roxborogh noted how dangerous this purported advice was and observed that Trump supporters were nonetheless defending him on this statement, by stating that his comments had been taken out of context. Tim then noted that such a defence fell away when Trump later claimed that he was being sarcastic to see if he could catch reporters out.
In response contributor Mary Lambie stated: “Yeah, and the fact that the reporter [to whom Trump addressed his subsequent remark] wasn’t even in the room when he said it apparently. … I think the great news to come of this is that all the Trump voters will inject themselves with disinfectant which would be not a bad thing.”
Standard 1 – Good Taste and Decency
Standard 1 states:
Current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast. The purpose of the standard is to ensure the maintenance of good taste and decency, consistent with the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast.
A number of contextual factors need to be considered, including the nature of the programme, the time of the broadcast, and audience expectations.
Notwithstanding the very many differences of option as to the nature or intent of President Trump’s statements – and Mary’s own statement, which could also be considered as sarcastic – we do not consider that Mary’s comment was appropriate, nor in good taste. As such, we uphold your complaint under Standard 1.
Standard 4 – Violence
Standard 4 provides:
Broadcasters should exercise care and discretion when referencing violence.
Guidance for the standard states that this standard rarely applies to radio. Additionally, the guidelines require any reference to violence should be justified by context. That means that references to violence must be appropriate to the context of the programme and classified carefully.
In this case, while we consider Mary’s statements were distasteful, we note that Tim very quickly stated that “I wouldn’t want anyone to follow his advice, that would be hideous.” Then in response to Ms Lambie’s subsequent comment,“the hardcore Trump supporters – you do want them to …”, Tim interjected to state: “I want them to see the light. I want everyone to see the light… I don’t want anyone to follow that horrible advice.” In our view, therefore, the hosts made it very clear that they did not promote violence or endorse Mary’s comment cited above.
Standard 5 – Law and Order
Standard 5 provides:
Broadcasters should observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order, taking into account the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast.
The BSA has previously stated that “to find a breach of the standard, the BSA will need to be convinced that a broadcast not only implicitly condemns a particular law, but also actively promotes disrespect for it.” Guidance for the standard states “[t]he purpose of this standard is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or otherwise promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.”
Again, we note that the hosts quickly made it absolutely clear that no person should inject themselves with disinfectant. In our view, therefore, the programme did not promote criminal or antisocial activity.
Therefore, we have not upheld your complaint under Standard 5.
Standard 6 – Discrimination and denigration
Standard 6 provides:
Broadcasters 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.
‘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.
The BSA has published guidance which states that “a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will be necessary to conclude that a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in contravention of the standard”. The term “denigration” has consistently been defined by the BSA as meaning blackening the reputation of a class of people.
The BSA has also consistently ruled a high level of invective is required to breach Standard 6, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will be necessary to conclude that a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in contravention of the standard, due to the freedom of speech provided under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Broadcasting Standards Authority has also noted that speech which offends, or which is rude, is not determinative of a breach of the standard. The nature of the programme is relevant in assessing whether the broadcaster “encouraged” discrimination or denigration.
We do consider that supporters of President Trump are a section of the community to which the Human Rights Act would apply, on the basis that political opinion is a protected ground.
The Authority has stated in several decisions that talkback radio is a robust, opinionated environment, where hosts are known for making provocative statements to stimulate robust debate. Audience expectations would reflect this. We expect our listeners, given the target adult audience, would anticipate some forthright opinions from hosts. However, notwithstanding the expectation that this segment may be robust and that audience expectations should align to this, we consider that the statement did denigrate a segment of the community.
We therefore have upheld your complaint under Standard 6.
Finally, we note that the hosts did make efforts to mitigate Mary’s statement, specifically by stating: “I wouldn’t want anyone to follow his advice, that would be hideous… I want everyone to see the light… I don’t want anyone to follow that horrible advice.”
Directly after the broadcast our producers raised the matter with the Content Director and management. As a result, it was decided that it was appropriate to take the segment off our website.
The Content Director has spoken to Ms Lambie and noted that her comment during the broadcast was not acceptable. Ms Lambie fully accepted that her comment went too far and regretted having made it. She acknowledged that her comment constituted a lack of judgement and was deeply apologetic for any offence caused.
Should you be dissatisfied with this decision you have the right to take the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority within 20 working days.