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 footage of spectators fighting during the half-time of the EURO 2020 final breached the violence standard. The Authority found the broadcast was justified by its context. Live sporting events are not subject to classification. The item was a live international feed where the broadcaster had limited editorial control, the content was not particularly graphic and the commentators indicated their disapproval of the violence.

Not Upheld: Violence

The broadcast

[1]  During the half-time break of the EURO 2020 final broadcast live (from 7.00am) on Sky Sport 7 on 12 July 2021, an edited clip was broadcast showing  fights breaking out between spectators at Wembley Stadium. The commentators dialogue over the clip follows:

Commentator 1:          These are scenes from inside the stadium.

Commentator 2:          Oh you’re joking.

Commentator 1:          They speak for themselves.

Commentator 2:          Oh dear, oh wow.

Commentator 1:          These have been edited in order that we can save you from the worst instance during that little run…I wonder if Wembley authorities are still of the opinion no one got in without a ticket that shouldn’t be there.

[2]  The clip lasted for about 20 seconds.

The complaint

[3]  Samantha Sharland complained the broadcast breached the violence standard. She argued the broadcaster should not have shown the spectators beating each other up when young viewers may be watching.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  SKY Network apologised to Ms Sharland for the offence the broadcast may have caused but did not uphold the complaint:

‘We were taking an international feed and had no control over the content being delivered. Broadcasters generally try to minimise footage of fights that spill over during matches (either on or off the field), although the nature of live sport is such that nothing is certain or predictable. The Euros certainly generated some strong feeling and it was in that context that some poor fan behaviour was captured as part of the broadcast.’

The standard

[5]  The violence standard¹ requires broadcasters to exercise care and discretion when portraying violence. Broadcasters should exercise caution with content likely to incite or encourage violence.² In news, current affairs and factual programmes, disturbing or alarming material should be justified in the public interest and carry audience advisories where appropriate.³

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 reasonable and justified.⁴

Violence

[8]  The level of editorial control of the broadcaster over programme content will be an important consideration when assessing complaints under this standard.⁵ Context is crucial, and the broadcast’s context may justify the inclusion of potentially violent material, or minimise its harmfulness.⁶

[9]  Considering the relevant contextual factors,⁷ we find the content here was justified by its context. We highlight the following factors:

• The broadcast was live sports content that is not subject to classification.⁸
• The particular clip was not preceded by a warning but was part of an international feed where editorial control was limited.
• The content was not particularly graphic and the commentator indicated the clip had been edited to remove the worst material.
• There is some public interest in such matters. The clip gives viewers insight into the atmosphere and emotion surrounding the final.
• The commentators’ tone and comments indicated their disapproval of the violence.

[10]  We therefore do not uphold this complaint.

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

Susie Staley
Acting Chair
27 October 2021    

Appendix

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

1  Samantha Sharland's complaint to Sky – 12 July 2021

2  Sky’s response to Ms Sharland – 31 August 2021

3  Ms Sharland’s referral to the Authority – 31 August 2021

4  Sky confirming no further comments – 16 September 2021

¹ Standard 4 of the Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Guideline 4b
³ Guideline 4c
⁴ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁵ Guideline 4a
⁶ Commentary: Violence, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 14
⁷ As above
⁸ Guideline 2c