John McLean against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3597
Council Meeting: 2 December 2024
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle: Children and Young People
Ruling Categories: Children and Young People
Overview
1. On September 22, 2024 NZ Herald aired a video on their website titled Seven-year-old quad-drifter in stilettos! Mr John McLean complains that this video breaches Principle (3) Children and Young People. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The 4.24-minute video features an interview with a seven-year-old boy, conducted by Jessie, aged ten. The video shows the boy riding his mini-quad bike, dancing, and engaging in the interview. Throughout, he wears a variety of dance costumes, including stiletto boots.
3. It is explained that the boy has been performing in films, adverts, theatre and TV since he was a baby. He is shown catwalk strutting in a number of bright outfits and exhibiting the dance that saw him ‘banned’ from a dance class aged four. This dance shows the boy sticking out his hips and slapping his bum in what might loosely be described as twerking.
4. He says that it is ‘fun and cool” being a performer and he loves style and creativity and when he grows up he would like to be a superstar like Taylor Swift, Cardi B, Nicki Minaj and others in that genre.
5. The video is made by Kea Kids, a company funded by NZ on Air to produce videos made by children for children and featured on the NZ Herald website. They also air on other social platforms.
6. This video was removed from the Herald website some days after it first appeared.
The Complaint
7. Mr McLean complains that the video breaches Principle (3), which says,
In cases involving children and young people editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child or young person.
8. He says that the boy is shown in clothes that would be “garishly saucy if worn by an adult” and “gyrating in ways that would be tastelessly raunchy if performed by an adult” is “normalising the sexualisation of children, and I guess the promotion of Trans.”
9. Mr McLean says that the Herald have taken little to no care in reporting on, and about, the boy and the depiction of him in a sexualised way is grossly inappropriate and clearly not in his best interests. He says that it is not clear that a parent or guardian was present during the video to safeguard the protection of the boy’s interests.
10. He says that the boy’s best interests have not been the primary consideration, more that he is being used as a pawn in an ideological culture war, to promote a perverse notion that children can legitimately be portrayed as humans with sexuality.
11. Mr McLean takes the Herald’s removal of the video as acknowledgement that the video was inappropriate and should not have been shown in the first place.
12. Mr McLean believes that for the same reason of not protecting the boy’s interests through showing him in a sexualised way, the video also contravenes Section 6 of the NZME Code of Conduct and Ethics, Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Standard 1 of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The focus of this complaint is on the Media Council principles.
The Response
13. While Kea Kids made this news video as one of a series made by kids for kids featuring on the Herald’s website and other social media platforms, the Herald accepts its responsibility to approve content.
14. The Herald says that the boy is an established performer having amassed a range of theatre, dance and TV appearances. His parents were fully consulted and consented to this video. On being advised of the complaint they told the Herald,
“Overall, we loved the opportunity for our son to express his creative self and most importantly he had such fun filming this story…he is outgoing, creative, loves to put on a show, loves to entertain and loves to make people laugh.”
15. The Herald says that the complaint is based on Mr McLean not liking the content and that he makes no attempt to demonstrate any harm caused to the boy, or that his interests were in any way overridden in the video’s production.
16. They say that it is not unusual for children to dress up like, and mimic, pop stars as a way of exploring their own creativity and that it is for the boy’s parents to supervise his upbringing, including his costumes, cultural influences and creative pursuits. The boy said that the making of the video was his most favourite acting job he has ever done.
17. On the basis that content from the video was being reposted out of context by some individuals and groups, the Herald took down the video a few days after it was first posted, saying,
We acknowledge in this case the video would have been better served if it had been accompanied by a written article providing more context, including the boy’s performing history and the fact his performances seem to mimic those of his favourite entertainers.
18. The Herald rejects that the video in any way caused any harm to the boy or overrode his best interests, saying that the welfare of children is of the utmost importance to them.
The Discussion
19. This complaint is being considered under Principle (3),
In cases involving children and young people editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child young person.
20. The issue is whether the boy is depicted in a sexualized manner in the video and, if so, whether it caused him harm or negatively impacted his interests.
21. The boy obviously enjoys performing and has been in adverts, on Shortland Street and the theatre. This video puts the focus on his love of style, costumes, dance and strutting the catwalk. He is shown emulating singing stars and making dance moves that are seen in pop videos but also commonly seen in a range of children’s dance performances and play. He looks to be having fun acting like a glam star, sometimes wearing stilettos.
22. The boy has the full backing and oversight of his parents who encourage his creative expression and appreciate the opportunity he had to showcase this in the video.
23. Seven-year-olds dressing up like rock stars and wiggling their hips is common play activity for many children. While accepting that this may be distasteful to some adults the Council sees the boy’s dancing and strutting as inoffensive play and part of his greater passion for dressing up and performing. The video gave him a platform, creating an interesting and entertaining story for the target audience of other children.
24. Given the content of the video, his obvious enjoyment, and his parents' oversight, the Council finds that the representation of the boy in the video does not breach the threshold of Principle (3).
25. The Herald's decision to remove the video on the basis that additional context could have enhanced its presentation is within their editorial rights and does not influence this decision.
26. The Council finds no grounds for a breach of Principle (3) Children and Young People and is not upheld.