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 a Seven Sharp segment depicting students cycling on a footpath. The complainant stated this was contrary to the Cycling Code. While acknowledging the depiction of potentially unlawful behaviour, the Authority found, in the context of the programme, the broadcast did not promote, glamorise, or condone breaking the law.

Not Upheld: Law and Order

The broadcast

[1]  A segment on Seven Sharp, broadcast at 7.00pm on 9 November 2021, reported on how teachers at an Auckland primary school were dealing with issues of home learning through cycling / scootering with their students. In the piece, the teachers and students were shown riding on the footpath at times.

The complaint

[2]  Arthur Davis complained the segment breached the law and order standard as:

• ‘Riding a cycle on the footpath is illegal in New Zealand… By broadcasting this item in prime time television in the manner you did, I consider you were promoting similar behaviour, or at least condoning such (illegal) practices as being "Okay".’
• The focus of the segment ‘could have been achieved with footage that did not show teachers AND children breaking the law of New Zealand; indeed promoting and condoning a blatant breach of the Road Code.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint. It noted:

• While ‘the Committee accepts that it is mandatory for cyclists to refrain from cycling on the footpath, standard 5 does not prohibit broadcaster filming or broadcasting illegal or criminal activity. The BSA has previously stated that the intent behind the law and order standard is to prevent broadcasters that encourage viewers to break the law, or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity.’
• Referring to a previous decision of the Authority,¹ ‘the Committee does not agree that a breach of the Law and Order Standard has occurred here. Seven Sharp is aimed at adult viewers, no focus was made of the cyclists cycling on the pavement, this was an incidental part of the item and not highlighted in any way.’

Our analysis

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

[5]  Our task is to weigh the value of the programme, in terms of the right to freedom of expression and the public interest, against the level of actual or potential harm caused. We may only intervene and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

[6]  The law and order standard² states 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.

[7]  We have some sympathy for the complainant’s position. We acknowledge riding a bicycle on a footpath contravenes the Cycling Code,³ and the broadcast likely demonstrated a land transport offence.⁴ We have previously recognised that it is desirable for programmes in this timeslot to depict safe practices.⁵ The same applies with respect to the depiction of legal practices.

[8]  However, the standard does not stop broadcasters from depicting law-breaking behaviour.⁶ Its purpose is to prevent broadcasts that encourage viewers to break the law, or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity.⁷ Something more is needed than the visual depiction of illegal activity.

[9]  We do not consider the segment reached the threshold justifying regulatory intervention and a limitation of freedom of expression.

[10]  In reaching this finding, we note context is crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.⁸ In this case, we identified the following relevant factors:

• Seven Sharp is a current affairs programme aimed at an adult audience.
• News and current affairs programmes are unlikely to be viewed by unsupervised young children.⁹
• The segment focused on cycling to bring together students at a school during a period of home learning.
• There were several representations of cyclists on footpaths throughout the segment, with some visual shots tracking the cyclists riding on the footpaths.
• No comments were made regarding cycling on the footpath.
• The cyclists also rode on the road and in a carpark.

[11]  We have previously held the mere depiction of breaches of road rules does not reach the threshold of promoting, glamorising, or condoning criminal activity.¹⁰

[12]  In light of the above context, we do not consider the programme condoned illegal behaviour, namely cycling on footpaths. That behaviour was incidental to the story being told. The likely practical effect of the segment was to provide some light-hearted news amid Auckland’s ongoing (at the time) lockdown restrictions. Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold the 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  Arthur Davis’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 12 November 2021

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 8 December 2021

3  Davis’s referral to the Authority – 8 December 2021

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 13 December 2021

¹ Taylor and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2010-008 at [13]
² Standard 5 of the Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
³ Waka Kotahi | NZ Transport Agency The New Zealand Code for Cycling (July 2020) at 52
⁴ Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 11.11
⁵ Fraser and TV3 Network Services Ltd, Decision Nos. 1996-111, 1996-112
⁶ Commentary: Law and Order, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 15
⁷ As above
⁸ Guideline 5b
⁹ Francis and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-045 at [17] citing Lowry and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-051 at [9] and Larsen and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-055
¹⁰ See Boreham and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2008-118 (Sir John Key purportedly not wearing seatbelt while driving) at [15]; Taylor and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2010-008 (reporter shown riding without wearing a helmet) at [13]