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 that the use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation during an episode of Shortland Street breached broadcasting standards. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed, and previous decisions on the use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations, 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, Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  During an episode of Shortland Street, broadcast on 24 April 2023, one of the characters used the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation.

The complaint

[2]  Annette Monaghan complained that the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, and discrimination and denigration standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis the use of the word ‘Jesus’ during the programme was blasphemous. Monaghan added:

• ‘It seems that screen writers find it an easy option to insult Christianity with this type of language. The religious icons of other cultures are not used so why therefore is the Lord's name taken in [vain] so easily by the writers of this programme.’
• ‘…I know for a fact I am not the only person who has been deeply offended by this.’
• The broadcast occurred at peak family viewing times.

[3]  In addition to this specific broadcast, the complainant was also concerned with the use of the word ‘Jesus’ during ‘numerous episodes last week’ of Shortland Street. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989, formal complaints must relate to a specific broadcast.¹ The complainant’s concerns in this regard are not sufficiently specific in relation to the particular broadcasts of concern, and our consideration of the complaint is therefore limited to the episode of 24 April 2023.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold Monaghan’s complaint on the basis:

The BSA has acknowledged that when broadcasts feature exclamations of words associated with ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’, ‘Hell’ and the Christian faith, some people might find this offensive. However, they note that these words are not considered to be coarse language and in our modern secular society have become widely used as part of everyday speech. The Authority has consistently found variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ used as exclamations do not threaten widely shared community standards of good taste and decency, and do not lead to discrimination and denigration of any section of the community.

Outcome: Declined to determine

[5]  Section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 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

[6]  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.

[7]  As indicated by the broadcaster, this guidance sets out that in our modern secular society, exclamations of words associated with ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’, ‘Hell’ and the Christian faith used in broadcasts are not considered to be coarse language, and have become widely used as part of everyday speech.

[8]  While acknowledging some people may find these words offensive, the Authority has consistently found variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ used as exclamations do not threaten widely shared community standards.⁴ The Authority has also previously found use of the word ‘Jesus’ as an exclamation is not likely to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Christians or Christianity.⁵

[9]  Given this consistent approach, the Authority considers it appropriate to exercise its s 11(b) discretion in this instance. The broadcaster’s response appropriately directed the complainant to BSA guidance which addressed the point raised. There is no need for this Authority to address the complaint any further.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
26 July 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Annette Monaghan’s formal complaint to TVNZ - 30 April 2023

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint - 1 May 2023

3  Monaghan’s referral to the Authority - 1 May 2023

4  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 7 June 2023

¹ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 6(1)(a); see also: Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints” <bsa.govt.nz>
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 Bruce-Phillips and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-092; McKane and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-118; McLean and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-046
⁵ McLean and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-046