BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Warning: This decision concerns language that some readers may find offensive.

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored. Neither ‘GC’ nor the c-word were used to discriminate against or denigrate women. The remaining standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness.

The broadcast

[1]  On 14 May 2024, Seven Sharp included an interview with Neil Finn, lead singer of Crowded House, conducted by presenter Jeremy Wells. During the interview, Wells asked Finn about another founding member of Crowded House:

Wells:    [Band member] obviously being there from the start, would you describe him as a GC?

Finn:      A GC? I don’t even know what a GC is. What is it?

Wells:    A good [beep].

Finn:      He’s a good [beep]? He is a good [beep]. Yeah, I love that.

[2]  Later, Wells discussed how he had difficulty finding any ‘dirt’ or negative commentary about Finn, including in reviews from critics and the public. Finn responded:

Finn:      We’ve had a few [bad reviews] over the years, a couple of painful ones. There was some guy who said… “red card, you [beep]”.

Wells:    Really?

Finn:      …as his review. It was like, three lines. My album was One Nil – see I remember this. … Because it was a sporting title, he went “red card, you [beep].” That was his sign-off on it.

The complaint

[3]  Franc Humphries complained the language used by Wells and Finn was ‘disgusting talk’ that was ‘wrong, insulting and hurtful on many levels’ and breached the following standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

• Offensive and disturbing content: the segment contained ‘obscene language’. On referral to the Authority, Humphries added it was ‘obscene, offensive, disturbing, and denigrating language targeting girls and women’.
• Children’s interests: the ‘obscene language’ occurred multiple times ‘during prime viewing’. On referral, Humphries added, ‘obscene language has no place in our home’ and its intent is not changed ‘by beeping over it’; they considered instead, beeping highlights the language.
• Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour (no reasons or specific content cited.)
• Discrimination and denigration: the language was ‘grossly insulting to women’.
• Fairness: it was ‘unfair to shock an unsuspecting public’ into watching the content.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Offensive and disturbing content

• Seven Sharp is aimed at an adult audience.
• The Authority recognises children of a vulnerable age are unlikely to watch the news unattended and there is an expectation that parents exercise discretion around viewing news and current affairs programmes with their children.
• The complaint concerned a ‘light-hearted question’ about a band member. There was no intention to belittle or be nasty about that person; rather, ‘the question was a compliment’.
• Finn was not offended by the question; it was apparent that he found the question ‘amusing’.
• ‘All coarse language in the segment was comprehensively beeped as would be expected by viewers. The term ‘GC’ is a euphemistic initialism used in a socially appropriate way, to take the place of a swear word. Such terms are commonplace in society and acceptable in programmes like Seven Sharp.’

Children’s interests

• In addition to the above factors, the broadcast was ‘consistent with viewer expectations and not unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult’.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

• The segment ‘did not glamorise crime or seriously anti-social behaviour and [the complainant] made no allegation in this regard’.

Discrimination and denigration

• This standard ‘does not apply to individuals (like Neil Finn)’.
• ‘There was no material in the Programme that expressed a high level of condemnation of any group of people.’
• ‘“women” as a group were not referenced in the discussion, and certainly not in a discriminatory way. The Committee rejects the argument that the c-word, referenced as ‘CG’ [sic], or good c***, was intended as a slur against women’.

Fairness

• The complainant made no allegation the broadcast was unfair to a particular person or organisation taking part or referred to in the broadcast.
• ‘The Fairness standard is not designed to protect the viewer from content which they may not like.’

The standards

[5]  We have focused our decision on the offensive and disturbing content, children’s interests, and discrimination and denigration standards, which we consider to be most relevant to the complainant’s concerns.

[6]  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; and
• the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[7]  The children’s interests standard³ requires broadcasters to ensure children can be protected from content which might adversely affect them. Material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent or sexual content or themes, offensive language, social or domestic friction, and dangerous, antisocial or illegal behaviour where such material is outside the expectations of the programme’s classification.⁴

[8]  The discrimination and denigration standard⁵ protects against broadcasts which encourage the discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

Our analysis

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

[10]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression, which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of content and information, and the audience’s right to receive it. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint when the broadcast has caused actual or potential harm at a level justifying a limitation on the right to freedom of expression.⁶

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[11]  Context is crucial when assessing whether a broadcast has breached this standard. We consider the following contextual factors to be relevant in this case:

The nature of the programme and audience expectations

• Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme.
• The broadcast aired at 7pm during children’s normally accepted viewing times.⁷
• Seven Sharp has an adult target audience, and it is expected that children watching the programme will be supervised.⁸
• There is an established audience expectation that Seven Sharp treats news and current affairs in a non-traditional, light-hearted manner. It routinely features banter and humour among the presenters, and humorous general interest pieces.⁹
• This item could be described as an example of such a general interest piece, being a long-form interview with Neil Finn (almost 14 minutes) about his music career, Crowded House, and what it is like to now have family members in the band with him.
• Jeremy Wells is also well-known for his style of presentation and humour.

The language

• The right to freedom of expression protects the right of individuals to express themselves in their own words, within the boundaries of the standards:¹⁰
  • In the first instance, the language was used in the context of Wells’ light-hearted question to Finn, intended as a compliment to another founding member of Crowded House – asking if that person is ‘a GC’. Finn was unaware of this expression but appeared amused upon Wells elaborating and remarked, ‘yeah, I love that’. Finn was clearly not offended by it.
  • In the second instance, Finn was relaying a personal anecdote in his own words, recounting a particular review of one of his albums.
• The c-word was censored in all instances.
• ‘GC’ was not censored but is an inoffensive, socially acceptable placeholder for the full phrase.
• Censoring expletives with a beep is commonly employed in broadcasting to mask coarse language.¹¹

[12]  In the Authority’s Language that May Offend in Broadcasting survey, the c-word ranked as the second most unacceptable word.¹² However, attitudes towards the c-word have softened over the years, with there being a significant decline in the perceived offensiveness of the word since 2018.¹³ Additionally, the context is important and affects the level of offensiveness in each case. ‘GC’ was not tested in the survey, nor suggested by respondents as an additional term considered to be offensive.

[13]  We acknowledge many viewers would have discerned the c-word from the relevant contexts, notwithstanding the beeping.¹⁴ Some members of the public may not agree that censoring sufficiently reduces its offensiveness. Nonetheless, the Authority has previously recognised that beeping is widely accepted in broadcasting and society generally.¹⁵ It is a socially acceptable way to significantly reduce the offensiveness of language that, if uncensored, some may find unacceptable. 

[14]  We consider the broadcaster struck an appropriate balance in this case –taking appropriate and adequate steps to censor the language thereby minimising any potential offensiveness, while also preserving Wells’ and Finn’s right to express themselves in their own words. The tone of the interview overall was positive and light-hearted, and sometimes humorous. The language was not used in an abusive or derogatory manner (except where Finn was quoting a negative review of his own music). In neither instance was it ‘targeting girls and women’ as alleged in the complaint.

[15]  In these circumstances, we find the broadcast was not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or seriously violate community standards of taste and decency. We have not found sufficient potential harm warranting regulatory intervention or restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Children’s interests

[16]  This standard is related to the offensive and disturbing content standard. Both standards consider the same contextual factors but they differ in focus. The children’s interests standard is focused on harm that may be unique to children, rather than audiences generally.¹⁶

[17]  Applying the same contextual factors and considerations outlined above, we are satisfied the broadcast was unlikely to adversely affect children. The segment was aimed at adults, being an interview with Neil Finn as part of an unclassified news and current affairs broadcast. All instances of the language complained about were appropriately censored.¹⁷ We do not consider any of the material in the broadcast was outside audience expectations.¹⁸

[18]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Discrimination and denigration

[19]  The complaint under this standard was that the broadcast contained ‘denigrating language targeting girls and women’.

[20]  Women are a recognised section of the community for the purposes of this standard. However, in the context of this interview, none of the discussion, nor the language complained about, could reasonably be interpreted as making any comment on women generally or encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, women.¹⁹ The broadcast did not have the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes against women, and did not contain any level of condemnation, malice, or nastiness towards women as a section of the community.²⁰

[21]  We therefore find no harm under this standard of the manner alleged in the complaint, and do not uphold this aspect.

Remaining standards

[22]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard²¹ is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.²² The complaint did not cite specific reasons or explain why this standard was breached. We considered the complainant’s concerns about offensive language were best addressed under the offensive and disturbing content, children’s interests, and discrimination and denigration standards.

[23]  The fairness standard²³ ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. It does not apply to the complainant’s concern that the broadcast was unfair to an ‘unsuspecting public’.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
24 October 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Franc Humphries’ initial complaint to TVNZ – 16 May 2024

2  Humphries confirming the applicable standards – 18 June 2024

3  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 10 July 2024

4  Humphries’ referral to the Authority – 20 July 2024

5  TVNZ confirming no further comments – 9 August 2024

¹ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
³ Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Guideline 2.2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁷ Moffat and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2014-161 at [9]
⁸ Hines and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2022-137 at [9] and [11]
⁹ As above, at [9]
¹⁰ See, for example, AP and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2021-153
¹¹ Moffat and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2014-161 at [9].
¹² Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may offend in broadcasting (17 February 2022)
¹³ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may offend in broadcasting (17 February 2022) at page 8; Bowie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2024-027 at [32]
¹⁴ As above, at [10].
¹⁵ As above, at [10].
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
¹⁷ See, for example, Burnell and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2008-082 at [17] and Moffat and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-161 at [13].
¹⁸ Guideline 2.2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁹ See, for example, Marshall and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-046
²⁰ Guideline 4.2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²¹ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²² Commentary, Standard 3, ode of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
²³ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand