BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an episode of Seven Sharp breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, as one of the hosts used the phrase ‘bloody good buggers’. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  During an episode of Seven Sharp broadcast on 11 July 2023, the hosts introduced a segment as follows:

Hilary Barry:              If there’s one thing Kiwis do well, it’s looking after their mates.

Matty McLean:           And sometimes all it takes is to hop in the car and hit the road. Up next, meet a bunch of ‘bloody good buggers’ making sure farmers in the Hawke’s Bay get the help they need, even when they haven’t asked for any. We’ll see you in a moment with that.

The complaint

[2]  Ian Duff complained that McLean’s use of the phrase ‘bloody good buggers’ was unacceptable, unnecessary and offensive.

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  TVNZ did not formally respond to the complainant’s correspondence, as it was of the view it did not amount to a ‘formal complaint’ for the purpose of the Broadcasting Act 1989 (the Act). This was because:

it was made through [TVNZ’s] 'Contact Us' page rather than the formal complaints page. It doesn’t nominate standards and doesn’t read like the complainant [was] expecting a response.

Jurisdiction

[4]  When determining whether a complaint falls within the Authority’s jurisdiction we look at whether it meets the criteria set out under section 6 of the Act. Section 6 provides a formal complaint must have the following characteristics:

• be made in writing.
• be lodged within 20 days of the broadcast.
• be about a programme which has been broadcast, and the allegations it makes must be in respect of that programme.
• ‘constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with section 4.’ In other words, it must constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with one or more of the broadcasting standards. A broadcasting standard does not necessarily have to be raised explicitly – if it can otherwise be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary in order to properly consider the complaint.¹

[5]  In this case, we find Duff’s correspondence did meet the criteria to constitute a ‘formal complaint’ under section 6 of the Act:

• It was made in writing, and sent to the broadcaster within 20 working days of the broadcast (whether or not the broadcaster considers it was sent through the ‘correct’ page).
• It identifies a particular broadcast (Seven Sharp on 11 July 2023).
• The content of the email raised concerns (‘made allegations’) which were clearly linked with content in that broadcast, and which in our view sufficiently conveyed an alleged breach of broadcasting standards: it referred to the phrase ‘bloody good buggers’ being unacceptable, unnecessary and offensive. We are satisfied this language can reasonably be interpreted as raising issues under the offensive and disturbing content standard, and that implying this standard is reasonably necessary in order to properly consider the complaint.

[6]  We therefore accept jurisdiction to consider Duff’s complaint.

Outcome: Declined to determine

[7]  Section 11(b) of the Act authorises the Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.²

[8]  The decisions of the Authority issued over time, and the Authority’s publication of Complaints that are Unlikely to Succeed,³ provide guidance to broadcasters and complainants about what is acceptable under broadcasting standards.

[9]  The Authority has consistently found isolated instances of low-level bad language (such as ‘bloody’ and ‘bugger’) do not breach broadcasting standards when used in the context of an unclassified news programme (such as Seven Sharp).⁴ 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.

[10]  Given this consistent approach, the Authority considers it appropriate to exercise its s 11(b) discretion in this instance.

For the above reasons the Authority declines to determine the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
3 October 2023   

Appendix

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

1  Ian Duff’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 13 July 2023

2  TVNZ’s comments on jurisdiction – 18 July 2023

3  TVNZ’s further comments – 21 August 2023

4  TVNZ’s further comments on jurisdiction – 25 August 2023

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Guidance: BSA power to decline to determine a complaint” <bsa.govt.nz>
³ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz>
⁴ See: Jeffries and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-081; Franklin and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-113; McCaughan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2020-165; Francis and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-045; and Lough and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-080