BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

During a segment of Seven Sharp, hosts Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells competed in a ‘Steak Off’ to see who could barbecue the best steak. During the competition, Wells wore an apron with an image of a naked man’s torso on the front, with the genitals on the apron pixelated throughout the segment. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, finding it unlikely, in the context, to have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  During a segment of Seven Sharp, broadcast at 7pm on 27 October 2022, the hosts Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells competed in a ‘Steak Off’ to see who could barbecue the best steak. The segment promoted TVNZ’s new barbecue cooking show Cooks on Fire.

[2]  During the competition, which had been pre-recorded, Wells was wearing an apron with an image of a naked man’s torso on the front. At all times during the segment, the genitals on the apron were pixelated. Wells and Barry did not comment on the apron during the competition. When the competition ended and the broadcast went back to the studio, there was the following dialogue between Wells and host Sacha McNeil:

McNeil:           I think you still would have lost, and that apron that you had on was very off-putting, for everyone I think.

Wells:             The apron was not my fault. I was given the apron. Nobody -

McNeil:           Forced it on you?

Wells:             It was forced on me. And it turns out that the apron was inappropriate. That's why that was pixelated.

The complaint

[3]  Brian Hines complained that the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, as the apron worn by Wells was ‘quite inappropriate at family viewing time.’ They added:

• ‘…the genital area was covered by a moving pixilation, all but creating the impression he was struggling with an erection.’
• ‘Pixelated male genitalia is sexual material.’
• ‘It was beyond a doubt provocative and the subject more likely to be seen in late night or alternative channels…’
• ‘…the offending apron segment was injected unannounced and unwarned into an otherwise viewable event, allowing no “supervision” or warning’ for children. 

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold Hines’ complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘Seven Sharp is aimed at an adult audience.’
• ‘The apron was intended to be humorous rather than offensive or titillating. The nudity on the apron was carefully pixilated and was never directly referenced by the presenters during the competition.’
• ‘The apron is mentioned in the studio discussion following the competition, when Mr Wells claims he was not responsible for choosing it. This discussion was also clearly intended to be humorous and was consistent with the studio banter that is a well-established part of Seven Sharp.’
• ‘There was no sexual material in the Programme or other material which is outside the expectations of Seven Sharp or the underlying G/PG time band in which it screens.’
• ‘The segment overall was consistent with the kind of quirky and interesting general interest pieces that regularly feature on the programme. The tone of the segment was typical of the light-hearted approach which would be expected by viewers.’
• ‘Mr Wells is well-known for his irreverent and occasionally provocative style of presenting. It contributes significantly to Seven Sharp’s appeal and would be expected by regular viewers of the show.’

The standard

[5]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard¹ 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.² 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

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

[7]  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.³

[8]  We acknowledge the complainant found the pixelated apron to be offensive. However, attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in a diverse society such as ours.⁴ The standard does not prohibit challenging material, but rather ensures that broadcasts fall within the broad limit of not causing widespread disproportionate offence or distress or seriously undermining widely shared community standards.⁵

[9]  The context of the broadcast is important in assessing whether the broadcast exceeded this limit. We considered 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, light-hearted treatment to news stories, and often features humorous general interest pieces.
• The segment at issue was a light-hearted, comedic piece featuring a barbecue competition to promote a new programme on TVNZ.
• While Wells wore the apron throughout the competition, which lasted approximately six and a half minutes, there was no associated sexual innuendo, and the genitalia on the apron was pixelated thoroughly at all times. The apron was not mentioned until McNeil joked back in the studio that it was ‘very off-putting.’
• We do not agree the pixelation gave the impression of an erection.

[10]  While this broadcast was unclassified, it screened during the G/PG timeband and we have previously found that showing people naked with breasts and genitals blurred is not inconsistent with a PG classification.⁶

[11]  We note the complainant’s submission that the relevant segment was ‘unannounced’ allowing no effective ‘supervision’ of children. However, Seven Sharp is not a children’s programme. Based on the contextual factors above, content of this nature can be reasonably anticipated. It is expected that young children watching such programmes will be supervised.⁷ While children allowed to watch the programme may then still see adult targeted content, parents and caregivers are at least there to discuss and explain it.

[12]  For the above reasons, we do not agree that the broadcast would have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress. Accordingly, we have not found harm at a level that justifies regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression and we do not 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
22 March 2023

Appendix

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

1  Brian Hines’ formal complaint to TVNZ – 31 October 2022

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 14 November 2022

3  Hines’ referral to the Authority – 9 December 2022

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 13 December 2022

¹ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 8
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁴ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 8
⁵ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 8
⁶ Danes and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-140 at [12]
⁷ Guideline 1.5