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 about a 1 News item recapping the match between champion heavyweight boxers Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder. The broadcast was within audience expectations of sports reporting and footage of the knockout punch was justified in the context of a boxing match. The Authority did not consider the broadcast of this sporting event promoted, glamorised or condoned criminal or serious antisocial activity.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1 News broadcast on 30 December 2021 recapped the ‘sporting greats’ of 2021. The recap included footage of the final knockout from the boxing match between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder. Fury was seen punching Wilder in the head, knocking him down, and the referee was shown supporting Wilder’s fall. Footage of the knockout punch was repeated two more times in slow motion.

The complaint

[2]  Ronald Sharplin complained the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, violence, and law and order standards as:

• The broadcast depicted Fury’s ‘vicious punch’ to the side of Wilder’s head, ‘sending him reeling unconscious against the ropes, collapsing to the canvas’ and Fury attempted ‘to render further savagery with display of cruel gratification but for the restraint by the referee.’
• ‘I need not elaborate the neurological damage prospects to the victim, and strongly oppose the sociological implications of acceptance of such brutality for broadcast. The rights to freedom of expression of such material is abused, unjustified, and ignores the norms of “good” taste and decency, and considered the antithesis of “good”.’
• ‘The incident is also in breach of the Code Standard 4 whereby the broadcaster fails to indicate reason portraying such violence.’
• ‘I regard the matter a crime of “assault”, if not a “serious assault” in terms of the “Crimes Act”, which the Code Standard 5 indicates being ineligible for broadcast, and, essentially all of the “sport” of boxing.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint, noting:

• 1 News is aimed at an adult audience.
• ‘The fight was a noteworthy and highly anticipated global sporting event, which was of significant interest in New Zealand. In this item the “greatest sportspeople of all time” were being celebrated and the bout between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder was part of this.’
• ‘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 footage from the fight was shown to give context to Tyson Fury’s greatest of all time status and the bout itself was acclaimed as one of the greatest heavyweight fights at the time. Such footage would be expected in a news story about a fight.’
• ‘Footage from the bout did not start immediately and people who did not want to view footage from the fight had opportunity to make an alternative viewing decision.’
• It also ‘referred to BSA decision 2021-151 concerning a complaint of footage from the Tyson Fury v Deontay Wilder bout which was being highlighted here and which also screen during 1 News. In the decision the BSA found no breach of standard 1 saying the level of violence was not unexpected and was acceptable in the context of a sport news story about boxing’.
• It did not consider the law and order standard was ‘triggered by the footage of the Fury v Wilder bout. Boxing is a sport and the footage which is shown depicts this sporting activity rather than anything which is illegal.’

The standards

[4]  The purpose of the good taste and decency standard¹ is to protect audience members from broadcasts likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.²

[5]  The purpose of the law and order standard³ is to prevent broadcasts encouraging viewers to break the law, or otherwise promoting, glamorising or condoning criminal or serious antisocial activity.⁴ The standard states broadcasters should observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order.

[6]  The purpose of the violence standard⁵ is to protect audiences from unduly disturbing violent content.⁶ It states broadcasters should exercise care and discretion when referencing violence.

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 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.⁷

[9]  We do not consider the broadcast breached any of the standards raised. The context of the programme is an important consideration when assessing complaints under all three standards.⁸ In reaching our finding, we identified the following relevant contextual factors:

• 1 News is an unclassified news programme targeted at an adult audience.⁹
• The item reported on the ‘sporting greats’ of 2021 and transitioned between each ‘great’, showing highlights of the moments.
• No audience advisory was used.
• The footage was a recap of a boxing match.
• The match footage complained about occurred approximately seven seconds after the recap moved to the boxing item.
• Footage of the knockout punch lasted approximately 14 seconds (including two repeats of the punch).
• The punches were within boxing rules.

[10]  We have previously dealt with complaints regarding violence in sports news items and noted 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 fighting footage will likely be shown in such items.¹⁰

Good Taste and Decency

[11]  The key issue we considered under this standard is whether the footage of the boxing match undermined widespread community standards or was likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress.

[12]  We issued a decision declining to uphold a complaint under this standard about the relevant Fury v Wilder boxing match when it was first broadcast.¹¹

[13]  As we found in that decision, while not to everyone’s taste, boxing is an accepted sport in our society, and the level of physicality involved is consented to by the competitors.¹² We also found there to be significant interest among sports fans as to the outcome of this particular match.

[14]  The footage in this broadcast showed the final knockout of their 11 round bout; a highlight of the match. It was repeated two further times, showing the incident from different camera angles or in slow-motion. In our view, this is conventional in sports reporting.¹³

[15]  We note a matter of distinction between this complaint and previous complaints. While match footage in previous complaints was signposted from the outset of the item, such as by introducing the item before showing it,¹⁴ the broadcast here focused on a range of sports, so there was less warning the item would contain boxing content before turning to the match itself. We do not consider this detracts from our above findings as the footage was justified by context and well within audience expectations of sports news reporting.

Violence

[16]  Violent content should be justified by context, and audiences should be adequately informed of likely content and warned if it is likely to disturb a significant number of listeners.¹⁵

[17]  As noted above, the footage was justified in its context. It was within expectations for a boxing match, and did not require any additional warning.

Law and Order

[18]  We do not consider the broadcast of this sporting event would have had the effect of promoting, glamorising or condoning criminal or serious antisocial activity.¹⁶

[19]  In terms of the complainant’s arguments regarding the definition of criminal assault, we also note, as boxers, both Fury and Wilder consented to their participation in the match (and any consequent risk of injury as part of that match). This amounts to a defence to criminal assault.¹⁷

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

Susie Staley
Chair
30 May 2022  

Appendix

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

1  Ronald Sharplin’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 19 January 2022

2  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 18 February 2022

3  Sharplin’s referral to the Authority – 17 March 2022

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 22 March 2022

¹ Standard 1, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
³ Standard 5, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁴ Commentary: Law and Order, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 15
⁵ Standard 4, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁶ Commentary: Violence, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 14
⁷ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁸ Guidelines 1a, 4b and 5b
⁹ Joughin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-151 at [13]
¹⁰ Joughin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-151 at [13]; Dawson and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2020-098 at [9]; Dandy and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-057 at [14]; and Malone & Sadd and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-155 at [9]
¹¹ Joughin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-151
¹² Joughin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-151 at [15]
¹³ See Sandford and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2010-105 at [17] where we made a similar finding, although in the context of repeated footage in a live broadcast of a rugby match
¹⁴ See, for example, Dandy and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-057 at [17]
¹⁵ Commentary: Violence, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 14
¹⁶ Commentary: Law and Order, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 15
¹⁷ See Crimes Act 1961, s 20; R v Lee [2006] 3 NZLR 42 (CA); and Ah-Chong v R [2015] NZSC 83, [2016] 1 NZLR 445 at [51] where the Supreme Court notes ‘…participation in certain types of sports will involve, if not an express consent, at least an implied consent to the type of physical contact that occurs as an incident of such sports and to the risk of serious injury’.