BSA Pānui - Your feedback on language that may offend

Number 156
Kia ora koutou

Many of you will be familiar with the BSA’s long running research tracking evolving public views on offensive language in broadcasting.
 
Every few years, we survey the public on their attitudes towards a list of words and phrases that may offend, as well as their views on the use of these terms in different broadcasting contexts.
 
The BSA and broadcasters use the results to help ensure TV and radio programmes, and BSA decisions, reflect current community attitudes.
 
We’re now preparing for our next survey and are seeking feedback from broadcasters and other stakeholders on a draft list of terms we propose testing.
 
While the list is largely constant from one survey to the next, enabling us to track views on the most offensive terms over time, there’s also some evolution in response to feedback and changing attitudes.
 
We would welcome any feedback you may have about the terms we propose testing – or suggestions of alternative terms – based on your own insights and experiences.
 
You can see the draft list of terms for testing hereopen_in_new.
 
A summary of the findings from our last round of research in 2022 can be seen hereopen_in_new.

Just a word of warning: by their nature, these contain language some may find offensive!
 
Please send any comments to info@bsa.govt.nz.

Ngā mihi mahana
Stacey Wood
Chief Executive
FEATURED DECISIONS


Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2024-097 (22 April 2025) open_in_new

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast on Radio New Zealand National’s Saturday Morning breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards. The broadcast was an interview of a UNICEF spokesperson and humanitarian worker about her experience living and working in Lebanon amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict. The Authority found the broadcast was clearly signalled as being from the interviewee’s perspective and was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience also could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage. Regarding accuracy, the Authority found the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context was significantly reduced, noting other media coverage of the conflict. The Authority also found not referring to Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organisations was not inaccurate, nor material in the context. If the death toll figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry were incorrect, it was not material in the context of the broadcast, and it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on such figures. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness



Kilkenny and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2025-004 (22 April 2025) open_in_new

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Seven Sharp segment breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The complainant alleged co-host Jeremy Wells held a cucumber in a way that could be ‘likened to a man holding an erect penis’. The Authority found any innuendo in Wells’s behaviour was low-level and would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed regular Seven Sharp viewers, noting the segment’s light-hearted tone. The Authority noted adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes and such content did not require an audience advisory.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

 

  

LATEST DECISIONS

 
 

NEWS AND RESEARCH

New Zealand International


Subscribe to the BSA Pānui newsletteropen_in_new