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 that a segment on Seven Sharp breached the offensive and disturbing content standard by describing a driver who uses mobility car parks illegally as an “arsehole”. The Authority acknowledged some viewers may find it offensive but, in the context, found it unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or seriously violate widely shared community standards.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  During a segment from the 3 August 2024 broadcast of Seven Sharp, hosts Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells introduced an item about drivers who park illegally in spaces reserved for mobility permit holders. The context for the item was a 400% increase in fines for offenders, introduced on 1 October 2024.

[2]  The segment included a short clip of drivers without mobility permits, parking in spots reserved for mobility permit holders. It also showed a wheelchair user accessing their car.

[3]  Most of the segment was made up of an interview with Raewyn Hailes, Access Coordinator for CCS Disability Action, who stated it was never appropriate for people without mobility permits to use mobility parks, as they are ‘essential’ for those with permits.

[4]  The item ran for just over five minutes and was introduced as follows:

Wells:                           If you have a mobility issue, you'll know how important it is to park as close as possible to wherever you're visiting. Many places have dedicated mobility parking.

Barry:                           But increasing numbers of people are ignoring the signs. And now the cost of ignoring them is about to go up.

Reporter 3:                  There's no denying they are the best parks around. The cream of the crop, close to the action, with plenty of room. But if you don't have a legitimate need, as indicated by a permit, you're not allowed to park here. If you do so, firstly, you're an arsehole. And secondly, you can be fined $150. But from the 1st of October, your blatant disregard for others will cost you a lot more. With the fine going up to $750 - a jump of 400%. It's the first increase in 20 years and the government says it's time for a crackdown on selfish behaviour. So let this be a warning. If you don't have a permit, find another spot.

[5]  The broadcast then cut to a live interview with Raewyn Hailes who emphasised that even short-term use of mobility spaces by those without a permit is not acceptable, as it can prevent someone who truly needs the spot from accessing it.

The complaint

[6]  Paul Beck complained that, despite agreeing with the ‘context’ of the story, the use of the word ’arsehole’ when describing drivers who misuse mobility parks breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis:

• It is not the type of language that should be used on a current affairs programme or ‘indeed at all on prime-time television’.
• Use of the word was particularly inappropriate ‘at 7:00 pm when children may be watching’.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• The segment was ‘consistent with the kind of quirky and interesting topics which often feature on the programme, and the tone was typical of the approach which would be expected by viewers’.
• The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard is not to prohibit challenging material, or material that some people may find offensive. Its purpose is to ensure sufficient care is taken so that challenging material is played only in an appropriate context and that the challenges are not so offensive that they are unacceptable regardless of context.
• They did not agree that it would offend or disturb a significant number of viewers in the context.
• ‘One instance of the word’ was included in the segment.

[8]  ‘The word “arsehole” is measured as being acceptable to a large proportion of viewers in BSA research’.¹

• Isolated instances of low-level coarse language will rarely breach the good taste and decency [now condensed into offensive and disturbing content] or children’s interests standards, particularly when aired during programmes rated PG or above, or during news bulletins. Words or phrases considered to be low-level bad language include ‘crap’, ‘bloody’, ‘bugger’, ‘wanker’, ‘pissed off’ and ‘shit’.
• While these words may not be everyone’s language of choice, they have become commonly used and are unlikely to surprise or offend a significant number of viewers.

The standard

[9]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard² is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.³ The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

Our analysis

[10]  We have watched 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 against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁴

[12]  Attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in a diverse society such as ours. The standard does not prohibit the broadcast of material that is not to everyone’s taste or that some people may find challenging. Rather, it ensures that broadcasts fall within the broad limit of not causing widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or seriously undermining widely shared community standards.⁵

[13]  Context is crucial for complaints made under this standard.⁶ We consider the following contextual factors to be relevant in this case:

• Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme with an adult target audience.
• Seven Sharp applies a non-traditional, and sometimes light-hearted treatment to news stories.⁷
• This segment was designed to inform viewers of the serious issues caused by illegal parking in mobility parking spaces and of the increasing fines for the offence.

[14]  It is also generally expected that parents supervise their children while watching the news, especially when sensitive or distressing topics are being covered. News broadcasts often include stories about violence, natural disasters, or other serious issues, which may be too intense or confusing for children to process on their own. Parents can play a crucial role by monitoring what their children are exposed to and discussing the content in an age-appropriate way. 

[15]  The Authority has acknowledged this over time and considers that children of a vulnerable age are unlikely to watch the news unattended.⁸ 

[16]  Research by the Authority in 2021 found that the word "arsehole" ranked 28th out of 31 words for acceptability across all scenarios, indicating it is becoming more acceptable compared to 2018, when it was ranked higher.⁹ However, some viewers expect a higher standard from their hosts and presenters when it comes to language, as the study also revealed that 65% of viewers were offended when the word was used by a host or presenter in news, documentary, or current events programmes, an increase from 29% in 2018.¹⁰

[17]  Given the term in this case was used by a presenter, we accept some viewers may be offended by it. However, we are also conscious the use of such language can be a powerful tool for expression in appropriate cases. Its use in this context sent a sharp message regarding the people who use mobility spaces illegally.

[18]  Although an alternative descriptor may have conveyed the same meaning as the word ‘arsehole’, ultimately, we do not consider the word was likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or to have seriously violated widely shared community standards in this context.

[19]  We therefore consider there is no potential harm warranting our intervention in the broadcaster’s editorial choices and right to freedom of expression.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
18 December 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Beck’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 3 September 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 30 September 2024

3  Beck’s referral to the Authority – 18 October 2024

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 21 October 2024

¹ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may offend in broadcasting (17 February 2022)
² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand   
³ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁶ Guideline 1.1
⁷ Hines and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-137 at [9]
⁸ Bracey and Ee – Decision No. 2013-084
⁹ Broadcasting Standards Authority (17 February 2022) "Language that may offend in broadcasting" <www.bsa.govt.nz> at 25
¹⁰ Broadcasting Standards Authority (17 February 2022) "Language that may offend in broadcasting" <www.bsa.govt.nz> at 27