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 segment of Seven Sharp misrepresented the seriousness of coeliac disease. The segment, which was focused on the benefits and risks of being part of clinical trials to test new medicines, briefly showed a sign saying, ‘Coeliac Disease Leaving You Bloated?’, with an image of a puffer fish, and noted those suffering from ‘bloat’ might consider signing up for a trial. The complainant considered comparing coeliac disease to ‘a bit of bloat’ was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority noted the broadcast did not describe the disease as ‘a bit of bloat’. The fleeting references to bloating as a symptom of coeliac disease were not material to the segment and would not have misled the audience to believe it was the only symptom, or the most serious symptom, of the disease. The balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 3 December 2025 broadcast of Seven Sharp on TVNZ 1 included a segment about the benefits and risks of being part of clinical trials to test new medicines. The reporter spoke to a doctor at the Canterbury Geriatric Medical Research Trust on this topic. In introducing the segment, the reporter said:

You may have seen the ads: clinical trials seeking humans to test all sorts of treatments for all kinds of conditions. Some are seeking healthy volunteers for phase one trials. The Canterbury Geriatric Medical Research Trust mostly conducts phase two trials. The next step, taking the medication to the sufferers who are desperately hoping it will work for them. Those with sore knees, back pain, or bloat, or cognitive decline. 

[2]  As the reporter was saying this last sentence, the programme showed images of signs for clinical trials by the Trust, including signs saying:

•  ‘Are sore Knees making you feel awkward?’ with an image of a giraffe with knobbly knees.
• ‘Back pain getting you down?’
• ‘Coeliac Disease Leaving You Bloated? Clinical Trial Open Now,’ with an image of a puffer fish.

[3]  The report went on to focus on the experiences of two people (one who had Alzheimer’s disease and one who had psoriasis) who were participating in clinical trials with the Trust, as well as the benefits and risks of such trials.

[4]  The sign saying, ‘Coeliac Disease Leaving You Bloated?’ was shown again towards the end of the broadcast while the reporter said, ‘And it’s important to know that all studies have to be approved by an independent ethics committee.’

The complaint

[5]  Christine Tregonning complained the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, due to coeliac disease being described as a ‘bit of bloat’. She said:

a)  ‘Coeliac Disease is more than a bit of bloat. It is actually a serious autoimmune condition that results in the malabsorption of essential vitamins and minerals due to damage to the small intestine. It is a life limiting condition that can lead to a host of other medical conditions including osteoporosis, anaemia, infertility, dermatitis, cancer as well as debilitating fatigue. The only known treatment at this stage is a gluten-free diet which is why the clinical trials are important.’

b)  It is very important to ‘get the facts correct’ about coeliac disease as there is a lack of understanding about it, and it is often confused with IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) or gluten sensitivity. The comment, while brief, reinforced this lack of understanding.

c)  ‘Making fun of a medical condition even if it was intended to be in a light-hearted manner can be seriously damaging as it stigmatises and ridicules sufferers…’

d)  Such ridicule may make it harder for sufferers of coeliac disease to adhere to a gluten-free diet or mislead them to think it is not a serious condition.

e)  Even though the comment was a brief part of the broadcast, ‘it was handled in such a way that it drew direct attention to “Coeliac Disease”’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

a)  ‘The reporter’s reference to “bloat” paraphrased the wording on the sign relating to a clinical trial for coeliac disease. It was not her own invention. There was no suggestion the reporter intended to minimise the experiences of people with coeliac disease or trivialise its symptoms.’

b)  ‘[TVNZ] understands that coeliac disease is more severe and complex than “a bit of bloat”, but viewers would have recognised that the brief incidental reference was not intended to provide an exhaustive list of symptoms associated with coeliac disease, or a comprehensive characterisation of its nature.’

c)  ‘Coeliac disease was not one of the trials or conditions discussed in the story, so the reporter’s incidental, oblique reference to it in the introduction had no material effect. In any case, bloating is a legitimate symptom of coeliac disease, so the reference was not materially inaccurate.’

d)  ‘Despite the colloquial language used by the reporter (and the sign she referenced), it would have been apparent to viewers that coeliac disease is a serious issue, given that it is the subject of clinical trials.’

e)  ‘The coeliac disease sign, and reporter’s reference to “bloat”, were incidental to the story overall. Coeliac disease was not discussed in the story. The story featured interviews with people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and psoriasis respectively.’

f)  ‘The story was concerned with developing awareness of clinical trials among older cohorts of the population, with the purpose of developing new medicines and improving health outcomes.’

g)  ‘The balance standard only applies to “controversial issues of public importance” that are “discussed” in a broadcast. Coeliac disease is not a controversial issue of public importance in the sense envisioned by the Standard, and it was not discussed in the broadcast – it was only referred to incidentally and obliquely as part of the Programme’s introduction. Therefore, the balance standard has no application.’

The standards

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹ The standard states:²

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[8]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard states:⁴

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[9]  The complainant’s concerns are focused on the misrepresentation of the seriousness of coeliac disease. The balance standard is focused on ensuring significant viewpoints are presented where a broadcast discusses a ‘controversial issue of public importance’. The nature and symptoms of coeliac disease were not ‘issues’ discussed during the broadcast, so the standard is not applicable to these concerns. The complainant’s concerns are more appropriately assessed under the accuracy standard, which we have focused on below.

Our analysis

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

[11]  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.⁵

[12]  The complainant has submitted the broadcast was inaccurate by describing coeliac disease as ‘a bit of bloat’, when the condition is much more serious. She said this was harmful in reinforcing a lack of understanding about the disease, and ridiculed sufferers of the disease.

[13]  The accuracy standard is concerned with material points of fact within a broadcast. The standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.⁶

[14]  The sign saying, ‘Coeliac Disease Leaving You Bloated? Clinical Trial Open Now,’ with an image of a puffer fish, was shown twice briefly during the broadcast. The first time, it was shown as a visual aid alongside other similar signs, while the reporter said, ‘Those with sore knees, back pain, or bloat, or cognitive decline’ – referring to sufferers of conditions who might consider signing up for a clinical trial. The second time, it was not verbally referenced.

[15]  The broadcast did not describe coeliac disease as ‘a bit of bloat’ – it noted sufferers of bloat (and, by implication, coeliac disease) may consider signing up for a trial. Nor did the sign shown describe the disease in this way, instead asking, ‘Coeliac Disease Leaving You Bloated?’ While only one possible symptom of the disease was mentioned, we do not consider this would have misled the audience to believe it was the only symptom, or the most serious symptom.

[16]  In any event, the nature and symptoms of coeliac disease were not material aspects of the broadcast. The reference to people with coeliac disease suffering ‘bloat’, and the image of the sign, were only referenced or shown briefly in the context of a report about the benefits and risks of being part of clinical trials to test new medicines. In the circumstances, it was not necessary to include any further details about the disease.

[17]  While we acknowledge the complainant’s concerns that misrepresenting the seriousness of coeliac disease could be harmful, we do not consider this occurred here.

[18]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
27 May 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Tregonning’s original complaint – 4 December 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 14 January 2026

3  Tregonning’s referral to the Authority – 20 January 2026

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 21 January 2026

¹ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
² Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15