BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

An item on Prime News inadvertently contained an uncensored image of the word ‘cunt’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the action taken by the broadcaster in response to this error was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaint under the good taste and decency standard and took steps to address the error with its news producers. The broadcaster also apologised to the complainant.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken)

The broadcast

[1]  An item on Prime News reported on UFC fighter Israel Adesanya’s decision to move to the USA. It included an image of Adesanya’s Instagram post in which he was wearing a t-shirt which read ‘good cunt’. The item was previewed before an ad break, ‘Israel dumps New Zealand for America. Not a political problem, just the anger of a UFC superstar’. This was accompanied by the Instagram image, but the word ‘cunt’ was blurred out. After the ad break, the news item included the same image without the word being blurred.

The complaint and broadcaster’s response

[2]  Stephen Cribb complained about the uncensored image shown in the broadcast.

[3]  Sky Network Television (Sky) explained MediaWorks NZ produces the Prime News bulletin, and raised the issue with MediaWorks which responded:

Unfortunately, an unblurred image of an offensive word went to air on Prime News. This was the result of a late change to a graphic, where an incorrect version of the graphic was used by mistake. We regret this error and apologise for any offence caused.

[4]  Sky also commented:

Thank you for raising the matter with us.  Although we accept Mediaworks’ explanation that it was unintentional and caused by human error, it shouldn’t have played on Prime News and we are sorry for any offence the story may have caused.  Please be assured that we take our responsibilities as a broadcaster seriously, and we have addressed the matter with Mediaworks’ Chief of News.

[5]  In response to the referral, Sky confirmed it considered the complaint upheld in the first instance and reiterated its apology for the error.

The standard

[6]  The good taste and decency standard¹ states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme. The standard is intended to protect audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.²

Our analysis

[7]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[8]  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 content 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, and has not been remedied by the action taken. For the reasons below, we do not consider regulatory intervention is justified in this case.

Action taken (good taste and decency)

[9]  Where a broadcaster has upheld a complaint in the first instance, our role is to consider whether the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to remedy the breach. In assessing this we consider the severity of the conduct, the extent of the actual or potential harm that may have arisen and whether the action taken appropriately remedied the alleged harm.³

[10]  We consider Sky was correct in finding the broadcast breached the standard. The word shown is widely considered to be unacceptable in most broadcasting scenarios. It ranked first in our 2018 Language That May Offend in Broadcasting research.⁴ 80% of respondents thought it was unacceptable for use by people being interviewed,⁵ and 82% thought it was unacceptable for use during sports commentary.⁶ Only 7% of respondents thought the word was acceptable in all scenarios.⁷ In addition, the blurring of the word in the first graphic but not the later graphic shows it was not intended to be shown during the news broadcast.

[11]  In terms of assessing the severity of the conduct and extent of harm, we consider the word would have been unexpected and somewhat shocking for a news audience at 5.30pm. We note this is not the first instance of offensive language being shown inadvertently on Prime.⁸

[12]  However, we are also conscious that:

• The image appeared briefly, for less than five seconds.
• The word was only shown on-screen and was not spoken by the presenter.
• The word was shown in error and was not used aggressively or maliciously.

[13]  The broadcaster acknowledged and recognised the breach in the first instance, apologising to the complainant. It took steps to highlight the issue with the news producer. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that no further action was required to address this breach.

[14]  Finally, we note it was not clear in the broadcaster’s response the complaint was upheld. We ask the broadcaster to ensure it is clear to complainants when it is upholding a complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
9 February 2022    

Appendix

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

1  Stephen Cribb’s complaint to Sky – 27 September 2021

2  Sky’s decision on the complaint – 27 October 2021

3  Cribb’s referral to the Authority – 23 November 2021

4  Sky’s confirmation it considered the complaint upheld – 25 November 2021

5  Sky’s confirmation of no further comments – 10 December 2021

¹ Standard 1, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 35
³ Horowhenua District Council and Mediaworks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2018-105 at [19]
⁴ See Language that May Offend in Broadcasting (Broadcasting Standards Authority, June 2018, page 6
⁵ Page 20
⁶ Page 31
⁷ Page 7
⁸ See Francis and SKY Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2019-088