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 footage on a 1 News item of a person’s negative reaction after receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The Authority acknowledged the high public value and education in news reporting about COVID-19 testing and found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. The law and order, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A 1 News item broadcast on 2 December 2021 reported on a growing COVID‑19 cluster in the Nelson-Tasman district and increased testing in the area. The broadcast included footage of a person receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The person reacted negatively, exclaiming ‘Jesus Christ, far out!’

The complaint

[2]  George Williamson complained the footage breached the good taste and decency, law and order, balance, and accuracy standards:

• It was unnecessary and ‘[t]otally irresponsible of TV1 to show the [negative] reaction of a young woman receiving a Covid test swab in Nelson.’
• ‘Showing blaspheming and the message the image conveys, at this hour, is appalling and uncalled for. It shows a complete lack of professional acumen.’
• ‘While a news reporter can't guess how someone might react, the programme planning for the news that is actually to be shown is the place to ensure this sort of image and sound bite is excluded from public viewing.’
• ‘The Government TV station…should be aware of their responsibilities to reinforce the critical message "to get tested". It is a fact that getting a nose swab is not significantly [uncomfortable] for most.’
• TVNZ screening ‘this shocking reaction segment has the possibility of turning off folk from getting tested - who might otherwise have got a test even if they were cautiously worried. One missing test of a young person (or indeed a person of any age) could be responsible for an unknown outbreak of Covid.’
• The footage ‘was completely unbalanced. The majority of those tested on that day will have done so with decorum and grace.’ Further, the ‘irresponsible picture of shocking reaction to being tested does not represent balanced and accurate reporting, notwithstanding it does appear to represent an individual's reaction’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

• ‘1 News is an unclassified news programme that screens at a scheduled time each day and has an adult target audience.’
• ‘News programmes, by their very nature, often contain disturbing or confronting material.’
• ‘The woman was shown reacting in an instinctive manner to a procedure that can clearly be uncomfortable. The woman’s reaction was theatrical and likely to have been amusing to some viewers, but it was not gratuitous; it was relevant to the issue that was being discussed.’
• It did not ‘agree that 1 News has an obligation to avoid showing nasal swab recipients exhibiting discomfort. It is a reality of the testing procedure that some people may find it uncomfortable. 1 News has shown numerous clips of people receiving nasal swabs, with a wide range of reactions being displayed on the spectrum from discomfort to nonchalance.’
• ‘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 ‘material in question was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offense among the Programme’s likely viewers.’
• With regards to the law and order, balance, and accuracy standards:
  • ‘The Programme did not contain any material’ that would promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.
  • One ‘person’s reaction to a nasal swab’ does not amount ‘to a controversial issue of public importance for the purpose of this standard.’
  • The complainant did not make ‘any allegation that a material point of fact is inaccurate in the programme.’

The standards

[4]  The good taste and decency standard¹ states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast. The standard is intended to protect audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.²

[5]  We consider the good taste and decency standard is most relevant to the complaint. However, the law and order, balance, and accuracy standards are dealt with briefly at paragraph [13].

Our analysis

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

[7]  Our task is to weigh the value of the programme, in terms of the right to freedom of expression and the public interest, against the level of actual or potential harm caused. We may only intervene and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

[8]  We note the item had a high level of public interest given it was disseminating public health information relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Good Taste and Decency

[9]  To the extent the complaint relates to the use of blasphemy, while we acknowledge it may be offensive to some, we have consistently found the term complained about, and similar terms, do not breach the good taste and decency standard when used as an exclamation.³ TVNZ’s response appropriately referred to previous BSA decisions guidance which addressed the point raised. Similar reasoning applies in this context and we do not uphold the complaint in this regard.

[10]  Regarding the remainder of the complaint, we do not consider any potential harm reached the threshold justifying regulatory intervention and a limitation of freedom of expression.

[11]  In reaching this finding, we note context is crucial in assessing complaints under the good taste and decency standard.⁴ In this case, we identified the following relevant factors:

• 1 News is a current affairs programme aimed at an adult audience.
• News and current affairs programmes are unlikely to be viewed by unsupervised young children.⁵
• News items often involve challenging material which reflects the world we live in.⁶
• The broadcast reported on increased COVID-19 testing following a growing cluster of COVID-19 cases.
• No other person receiving a nasal test was shown.
• The footage lasted 4 seconds in the middle of a 2.55-minute item.

[12]  While the only person filmed receiving a nasal test reacted negatively, in the context of a broadcast reporting on increased testing we consider the footage unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. It has been well publicised the COVID-19 nasal swab test may cause discomfort.⁷ Audiences are therefore unlikely to be surprised or unduly influenced by the example depicted. Such content is well within audience expectations of the item, and news programmes more generally.

Remaining Standards

[13]  We consider the remaining standards did not apply or were not breached:

• Law and order:⁸ The purpose of this standard is to prevent broadcasts that encourage viewers to break the law, or otherwise promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.⁹ The broadcast did not depict, or support, any illegal behaviour. We acknowledge the complainant’s concern the footage may deter some people from seeking a COVID-19 test. However, as noted above, it has been well publicised the test may cause discomfort and audiences are likely to be aware of that. Accordingly, we do not consider this particular example was likely to have such influence over viewers.
• Balance:¹⁰ This standard requires reasonable efforts to be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.¹¹ While the topic of COVID-19 testing raises various significant matters of public importance, this complaint focuses on an individual’s reaction to receiving a test which is not such a matter. The balance standard does not apply.
• Accuracy:¹² The purpose of this standard is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹³ The complainant stated it was misleading to film a negative reaction to the test, when the majority of tests occur with little discomfort. However, the broadcast did not suggest discomfort was the inevitable, or even common, reaction to the swab test. In addition, there is nothing inaccurate about the depiction of one person’s reaction. There is no suggestion the reaction itself did not occur.¹⁴

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

Susie Staley
Chair
7 March 2022   

Appendix

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

1  George Williamson’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 2 December 2021

2  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 23 December 2021

3  Williamson’s referral to the Authority – 23 January 2022

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 25 January 2022

5  Williamson confirming scope of referral – 27 January 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 See for example Joubert-Buys and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-156 (‘hate with the passion of a thousand Christs’, ‘For the love of God’); Stark and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-080 (‘Jesus Christ’); Ten Hove and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-044A (‘Jesus Christ’); and Bruce-Phillips and TVNZ Ltd, Decision No. 2020-092 (‘Jesus’)
⁴ Guideline 1a
⁵ Francis and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-045 at [17] citing Lowry and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-051 at [9]; and Larsen and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-055
⁶ Maysmor and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-048 at [13] and Lewis and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-069 at [14]
⁷ Health Navigator New Zealand (2 January 2022) "Nasal swab test" <healthnavigator.org.nz>; Anna Whyte “Saliva testing alternative to be rolled out to NZ border workers” 1 News (online ed, 14 June 2021); Michael Hayward (18 April 2020) “Mass screening and why I got the coronavirus swab” Stuff <stuff.co.nz>; Mandy Te (24 March 2020) “Coronavirus: Test swabs cause 'sharp' pain but temporary, woman says” Stuff <stuff.co.nz>; “Coronavirus: How likely is it you'll be injured during a nasal swab test for COVID-19?” Newshub (online ed, 30 April 2021); Frances Cook “Coronavirus: What it's like getting tested for Covid-19 in New Zealand” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 23 March 2020)
⁸ Standard 5, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁹ Commentary: Law and Order, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 15
¹⁰ Standard 8, Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
¹¹ Guideline 8a
¹² Standard 9, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
¹³ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹⁴ Although the complainant did note the individual may have been ‘acting out because’ they were being filmed, this does not mean the reaction itself did not occur