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 that a Seven Sharp segment breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The complainant alleged co-host Jeremy Wells held a cucumber in a way that could be ‘likened to a man holding an erect penis’. The Authority found any innuendo in Wells’s behaviour was low-level and would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed regular Seven Sharp viewers, noting the segment’s light-hearted tone. The Authority noted adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes and such content did not require an audience advisory.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  The 25 November 2024 broadcast of Seven Sharp included an item about the drop in vegetable prices in New Zealand and how, due to the virality of cucumber salad recipes on TikTok, cucumbers had increased in popularity.

[2]  Seven Sharp presenters Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells interviewed a nutritionist to analyse claims by TikTok content creators about the supposedly high nutritional value of cucumbers. After the interview, the segment cut back to the presenters live in the studio. Three cucumbers were on a table in front of them, and Wells was holding two:

Wells:                         I tell you what, what are the three pillars of Seven Sharp stories? You'd say, colourful characters in the regions, news you can use- 

Barry:                          Always news you can use. 

Wells:                         And veggie stories. 

Barry:                          Well, would we say you have been hassling the boss for another veggie story for such a long time? 

Wells:                         It's not just me. We get 15 emails a day. ‘When are you doing another veggie story?’ So much success on the veggie stories. People love the veggie stories. 

Barry:                          Okay, well, tell us what you love about cucumbers then. 

Wells:                         Well, I mean, I do like a ‘cumber. But I've got to say, these are not- these ‘cumbers that we've got to work with here, they're a bit manky. These are manky ‘cumbers. 

Barry:                          Well, they've been filming with them all day, so they've been fondled quite a bit. 

Wells:                         Someone's been fondling these ‘cumbers. Look at them. 

[Wells holds up the two cucumbers for the camera.]

Barry:                          I don't know. If I was to pick a cucumber, I don't think I'd be- I like them straighter. Like that one [picks up a cucumber], with the big bend in it, I don't like that. I just like them to look- [puts down cucumber]. Maybe that- [takes a cucumber from Wells]. Actually, maybe that one is quite good [picks up another cucumber]. This one's quite good. I don't know, why can't they straighten them out a bit? They just look a bit odd. 

Wells:                         I know why you like that one. 

Barry:                          [Laughing] The other thing is that [the guest nutritionist] said it's [both start laughing] really important to eat the skin because that's where all the goodness is. [Still laughing] Why-

Wells:                         You’re dressed as a cucumber. Is that me or is Hilary dressed as a cucumber? 

[3]  The broadcast ended with the following:

Barry:             [To Wells, who is holding a cucumber] Do you mind? 

[To camera] We've been flooded with complaints. 

[To Wells] Put it down. 

[To camera] Linda says, ‘Jeremy is naughty.’ Yes, he is. Coral says, ‘Why do they have to wrap telegraph cucumbers in plastic?’ I agree. ‘Nature put a cover on it. Not very landfill friendly.’ Quite agree. ‘Stop fooling around with a cucumber,’ says Neil. 

Wells:              I don't understand what Neil's talking about. 

Barry:              You speak the truth, Neil. Paul says, ‘Cucumbers are fruit.’ Oh, I didn't realise that. 

Wells:              Probably.

Barry:              I'm putting a Google hold on that.

Wells:              Yep

Barry:             And Trish likes the dress. Thanks Trish. 

                        …

The complaint

[4]  Eme Kilkenny complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand because Jeremy Wells positioned a cucumber for an extended period ‘in such a manner… that [it] could be likened to a man holding an erect penis’. This was ‘inappropriate for a 7.30pm general or family viewing timeslot’ and ‘is not what most in the community would see as adult or professional for a prime-time host on state TV’. The complainant also noted there was no ‘advisory indicating adult-only content’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• Seven Sharp is aimed at an adult audience, and there is an expectation that children of a vulnerable age are unlikely to watch the news unattended.
• ‘[T]he segment was consistent with the kind of quirky and interesting topics which often feature on the programme, and the tone was typical of the light-hearted approach which would be expected by viewers.’
• The content complained about was ‘low-level innuendo’. It was clearly a joke, ‘not so explicit or graphic that it could not be screened in a news and current affairs programme aimed at adults’, and a small part of the overall broadcast.
• Wells ‘[was], mainly, holding two cucumbers and [did] not overtly mimic having an erect penis’. Such an interpretation would have been ‘a minority outtake of the presenter’s behaviour’. Even if ‘this minority view was correct’, Wells’s behaviour was ‘not overly lewd or sexualised’.
• ‘There is also recognition in the programme, through viewer feedback at the end, that some found the commentary to not be amusing.’

The standard

[6]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard (Standard 1) 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.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking 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.

Our analysis

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

[8]  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 and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.³

[9]  When we consider a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard, we take into account relevant contextual factors, which here include:⁴

• Seven Sharp being an unclassified news, current affairs and entertainment programme 
• the time of broadcast at 7pm, during children’s normally accepted viewing times⁵
• the adult target audience of Seven Sharp
• the audience expectations of Seven Sharp.

[10]  The complaint specifically regarded how Wells positioned the cucumbers and the innuendo associated with that act. We note Wells held two cucumbers for much of the relevant period and did not overtly mimic having an erect penis, as stated by TVNZ in their response to the complaint. The segment was also light-hearted and humorous in tone rather than titillating.⁶ We therefore consider any innuendo to be low-level.

[11]  The relevant material was a small part of a programme that is targeted at adults and known for its informal, unorthodox approach to news and current affairs. In this context, we do not consider the broadcast would have disproportionately offended or disturbed most viewers.

[12]  Regarding the complainant’s concerns about 7.00pm being a ‘family viewing slot’, we have consistently recognised adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes. Such programmes often contain, and can be expected to contain, material that is inappropriate for children.⁷ In this case, adult supervision, enabling an appropriate explanation or other response, would mitigate any risk of harm to vulnerable children who happened to be watching. In addition, such low-level innuendo is likely to go over the heads of younger child viewers.

[13]  While the complainant noted the absence of an audience advisory, advisories are only required before content that is ‘likely to be outside audience expectations, disturb children or offend or disturb a significant section of the audience’.⁸ Given our findings above, we do not consider an audience advisory was required in these circumstances.

[14]  For the reasons above, 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 April 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Kilkenny's original complaint - 26 November 2024

2  TVNZ's decision - 20 December 2024

3  Kilkenny's referral to the Authority - 13 January 2025

4  TVNZ's confirmation of no further comment - 7 March 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Doorey and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-088 at [8]
⁵ Children’s normally accepted viewing times are usually up until 8.30pm (especially before school and after school), and on weekends and public holidays (Guideline 2.1).
⁶ For a similar finding, see Doorey and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-088 at [10]
⁷ Bracey and EE and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-084 at [9]
⁸ Guideline 1.7