Kiwis are more sensitive to offensive language on air than four years ago, says the BSA. Photo / Getty Images
Kiwis are more sensitive to offensive language on the airwaves than they were four years ago.
Research carried out for the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) tracking public views on offensive language in broadcasting has found tolerance has fallen in the past four years - with terms targeting specific communities considered the least acceptable.
Since 1999 the periodic study has been used to guide BSA decisions ensuring programmes reflect current community standards.
A survey of 1501 people, conducted in September 2025, tracked attitudes towards 31 terms - including swear words, racial and gender-based insults and blasphemous phrases - presented in different broadcasting scenarios.
More than half the terms assessed in both 2021 and 2025 were found less acceptable than four years ago.
The N-word remains the least accepted, with 70% of those surveyed deeming it totally unacceptable in broadcasting, up from 65% in 2021.
A spelling variation of this word was the second least tolerated, at 67%.
With 66% of respondents deeming it unacceptable, the C-word was found to be third most offensive.
The BSA say this and other terms related to misogyny saw particularly sharp rises in unacceptability “likely influenced by recent public debates and increased visibility in political contexts”.
Six of the 10 most unacceptable terms relate to race, ethnicity or culture.
Christian survey respondents were less tolerant of strong language than those without a faith. “Jesus F…ing Christ" was unacceptable to 84% of Christians.
More people overall now regard the blasphemy as totally unacceptable (53% in 2025, up from 46%).
Fifty-one % of respondents considered the phrase “Mother f****r” unacceptable.
BSA chief executive Stacey Wood says the research provides a useful guide to New Zealanders’ evolving views on how language is used on air.
“While the past four years have seen a rebound in objection to strong language, this is set against a long-term softening in attitudes since our first survey in 1999.
Back then, the word ‘bugger’ in a well-known ute advert sparked national outrage – but this has long since dropped from the ranks of most offensive words.”
The 2025 study found just one word which attitudes have softened on since 2021.
The use of “mental” has become more permissive across all types of broadcast content, with only 20% reporting it totally unacceptable, down 6%.
Dr Tony Fisher, a Massey University director of teaching and learning with a background in linguistics and television production, says it’s important to keep an eye on the wider context in which profanities are used because attitudes are constantly evolving.
“Part of the power of swear words is the fact we don’t use them in everyday conversations, especially in public or polite situations ... when we encounter them more frequently it’s inevitable they lose their capacity to offend.”
As an example, Fisher noted that in Victorian England the word “trousers” wasn’t used publicly.
“Trousers were referred to as unmentionables because they were things that adorned the legs which weren’t considered something you talked about in polite conversation.”
Demographic variances also impact views on offensive language - particularly age and gender.
The study found Pacific peoples are the least accepting of strong language on air. Asian New Zealanders have lower than average acceptance for general profanity. Younger adults align more closely with national averages, but young women are less accepting than young men of the most offensive words. Older men are generally the most tolerant and older women the least.
Attitudes towards language were found to be highly dependent on context. Tolerance is generally lower for potentially offensive words heard in talkback radio, sports commentary, or factual programming involving a host or presenter. Comedy, TV drama, music and reality TV are contexts where strong language is more tolerated, though this still depends on programme timing.
“Strong language is seen as more of a problem before the 8.30pm ‘watershed’, when it’s more likely to be encountered by children,” Wood explains.
Fisher thinks that technological shifts also impact our attitudes to what is considered profanity, suggests the unregulated online media environment will increase tolerance to traditionally offensive language.
“Online content doesn’t have that same regulation. People can produce what are effectively TV shows, put them online and say pretty much anything they like and there’s not really much anybody can do about it because they’re not under the auspices of any particular organisation or any authority,”
“I think that’s inevitably going to increase our tolerance to swearing because if we’re online and watching content online, depending on what we watch obviously, if you’re watching a dog training video you’re less likely to encounter it than if you watch a sort of far-right political broadcast, you know. But if you’re hearing more swearing and you’re hearing it used more commonly, that’s likely to increase your tolerance.”