BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on 1 News covering the final match in a trilogy fight between champion heavyweight boxers Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder breached the good taste and decency standard. The complainant alleged the fighting shown in the item was excessively violent. The Authority found the level of violence was not unexpected and was acceptable in the context of a sport news story about boxing.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

The broadcast

[1]  A sports item on 1 News covering the final match in a professional boxing trilogy fight between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder was introduced as follows:

It was billed as once and for all the defining fight in the heavyweight showdowns between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder. So with one draw and one win to Fury already on the cards, could the undefeated Gypsy King maintain his record? Kimberley Downs with a third and likely final instalment of boxing's big trilogy.

[2]  The item, which aired on 10 October 2021, contained footage of the fight, including the boxers punching each other in the sides of the head, and knocking each other down on several occasions. At one point, the reporter noted ‘Fury's turn to respond, he did so with venom targeting the left side of Wilder's head and opening him up.’

The complaint

[3]  Andrew Joughin made a complaint about this item, advising:

• He found the violence shown in the boxing match, and in boxing generally, to be upsetting and offensive.
• Due to the ‘sheer brute force of this fight,’ he thought there was a strong likelihood he was witnessing a fight where the boxers were giving each other concussion, brain damage or early-onset dementia. He feared he might even witness Tyson Fury kill Deontay Wilder.
• In New Zealand, where there are high rates of domestic violence and violent offending, responsible broadcasters should not be giving a platform to such violence.
• The New Zealand Medical Association also recommended in 2018 that boxing be banned.
• He considered that TVNZ should stop covering boxing, or reschedule any coverage to the middle of the night for example.

[4]  Mr Joughin made his initial complaint to TVNZ under the good taste and decency standard, however referred his complaint to the Authority under the violence standard.

The broadcaster’s response                                     

[5]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint under the good taste and decency standard, advising:

• 1 News is aimed at an adult audience.
• ‘The fight was a significant and highly anticipated global sporting event, which was of significant interest in New Zealand.’
• ‘Boxing and other contact sports are acceptable to screen in G time and during news broadcasts. Footage of knockouts (which are an accepted part of these sports) also screens at this time.’
• ‘The various clips of footage from the fight [were] shown to give context to the bout (which was acclaimed as one of the greatest heavyweight fights). It was not repeated gratuitously. Such footage would be expected in a news story about a fight.’
• ‘Footage from the fight did not arrive until over a minute into the story, following the studio presenter’s introduction and coverage of the lead-up to the fight. People who did not want to view footage from the fight had ample opportunity to make an alternative viewing decision.’

Jurisdiction – violence standard

[6]  Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority is only able to consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. However, in limited circumstances, the Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied into the wording.¹

[7]  TVNZ objected to this complaint being considered under the violence standard, given the good taste and decency standard was raised in the first instance.

[8]  We note that the good taste and decency standard is usually considered in relation to offensive language, sexual material, nudity and violence.² Very similar considerations apply to the good taste and decency standard as to the violence standard. As such, it is not necessary to determine whether the violence standard can be reasonably implied into the wording of the original complaint, as the complaint can be adequately considered under the good taste and decency standard.

The relevant standard

[9]  The good taste and decency standard³ states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme. The standard protects audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.⁴

Our analysis

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

[11]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh 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 reasonable and justified.⁵

[12]  Context and audience expectations are crucial to consideration of a complaint under the good taste and decency standard.⁶ Audiences who know what they are getting can usually avoid the material if they wish. If broadcasters successfully manage their audiences’ expectations by providing information sufficient for them to make informed choices about content, breaches are less likely.

[13]  1 News is an unclassified news programme targeted at an adult audience. Sports items on combat sports, such as boxing and mixed martial arts, are frequently aired on news programmes without prior audience advisory warnings. A level of violence is inherent in these sports, and audiences can expect that fighting footage will likely be shown in such items. In this particular piece, we do not consider the fighting depicted was gratuitous or that it exceeded the violence that could reasonably be expected in a boxing match. Accordingly, the fighting shown in this item was within general audience expectations of such news items.

[14]  The item was introduced at length, signposting what it was about and giving viewers an indication that it was likely to contain footage of the boxing match. Fighting was not shown until halfway through the item. While it was not preceded by an advisory warning, there was sufficient notice given for viewers to exercise discretion and switch off the broadcast if they wished.

[15]  While we acknowledge that some viewers may find boxing upsetting, it is an accepted sport in our society, and the level of physicality involved is consented to by the competitors. This particular boxing fight was newsworthy as it was the final match in a trilogy between two high profile heavyweight champions, and there was significant interest among sports fans as to the outcome.

[16]  On the basis of the above, and in line with previous decisions involving complaints about news items on combat sports,⁷ we do not consider the broadcast undermined current norms of good taste and decency.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
16 February 2022   
 

Appendix

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

1  Andrew Joughin’s initial email to TVNZ – 11 October 2021

2  Joughin’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 25 October 2021

3  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 22 November 2021

4  Joughin’s referral to the Authority – 10 December 2021

5  TVNZ’s response to referral – 13 December 2021

6  Joughin’s comments on applicable standard – 21 December 2021

7  TVNZ’s comments under violence standard – 22 December 2021

8  Joughin’s final comments – 11 January 2022

¹ See Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Limited, CIV-2011-485-1110 at [62]
² Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
³ Standard 1 of the Free-to-Air Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁴ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁵ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁶ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁷ See: Dawson and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2020-098, Malone & Sadd and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-155.