BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Auckland Sun Club was the subject of an item on TV2's Newsnight broadcast at

about 11.00pm on 29 November 1995. A graphic depicting a hand was used to cover

the genitalia of the club members who appeared in the item.

Mr Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the masking device was

unnecessary and that its use breached the requirements in the broadcasting codes for

accuracy, good taste, balance, and editing which did not distort. Further, he argued,

the selective use of masking in different items on television encouraged discrimination

against Caucasians.

On the basis that the use of the device was light-hearted and designed to highlight the

contrast between sun-lovers and those who disapproved of nudity, TVNZ declined to

uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Lowe referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989.

For the reasons below the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Some of the interests and activities of the members of the Auckland Sun Club were

examined in an item on Newsnight broadcast at about 11.00pm on 29 November 1995.

The item included interviews with members of the club on the club's grounds although

equipment was placed strategically or other techniques were used to ensure that the

members' pubic areas were always hidden. On some occasions a graphic hand was

used for this purpose.

Mr Lowe complained to TVNZ that the masking devices used were unnecessary and,

moreover, their use breached standards G1, G2, G6 and G13 and G19 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The reasons advanced under each heading

are set out in the Appendix. In essence, Mr Lowe complained that masking exacerbated

unhealthy attitudes acquired by the young and held by many towards the human body.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standards. The first four require

broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in

language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language

or behaviour occurs.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters,

current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior,

or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the

community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status,

sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief.

This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which

is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs

programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work

The other one reads:

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event or

the overall views expressed.

Explaining that the item made gentle fun of the nudists, TVNZ stated that the graphic

hand had been used – not as a serious attempt to conceal nudity – but to highlight the

contrast between the naked sun lovers and those in the community who disapproved of

such behaviour. Questioning the applicability of standards G6, G13 and G19, TVNZ

denied that the item breached any of the standards nominated.

Mr Lowe obtained TVNZ's "in-house" censorship rules and, when he referred the

complaint to the Authority, he hypothesised some reasons for the use of masking

techniques. He concluded:

My overwhelming concern is that the applied distortion is corrupting by the

implication of its message to children. It is clear from some of the research

quoted below, that that can have dangerous, sometimes devastating consequences

for them as adults. On those grounds, it is far safer to avoid the potential harm.

The Authority must find post-production masking of non-sexual nudity to be

discriminatory, dishonest and unacceptable.

Because of Mr Lowe's concern encapsulated in the above quote, the Authority is not

examining the complaint under each specific standard. Rather, it is considering whether

the masking devices employed were justified.

The Authority notes that the sun club members spoken to during the item do not practise

nudity when not in the sun club environment. Indeed, one member referred to the joy

in dressing for dinner. It was apparent that the members were members because they

seemed to get pleasure in sunbathing naked and had chosen an environment where they

could do so with people with similar interests. For example, another member spoke of

the unwanted attention to which nudists might be subject at "free" beaches. In other

words, the members could not be regarded as exhibitionists. They wished only to

enjoy the delights in sunbathing and socialising naked when among those with a similar

interest. They did not want to flaunt their nudity as such.

Given this scenario, the Authority considers that the use of a graphic hand to cover the

genitalia and pubic areas of the members of the sun club was an appropriate technique

for TVNZ to use. Whether of the innocent sun club variety or the lascivious strip club

style, the widespread public portrayal of nudity is not expected and, the Authority

concludes, the broadcast did not breach the nominated standards.

For the reasons above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
21 March 1996

Appendix

John Lowe's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 14 December

1995

Mr Lowe of Oakura complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on the

Auckland Sun Club broadcast at about 11.00pm on TV2's Newsnight on 29 November

1995.

While being complimentary about the item overall, Mr Lowe criticised the contrived

means - a graphic hand - used to cover the genital areas of the participants. The device,

he alleged, involved a breach of standards G1, G2, G6, G13 and G19 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Standard G1 requires factual truth and accuracy and Mr Lowe maintained that it was

contravened as the masking technique employed hid the fact that humans had pubic hair

and genitals.

Broadcasters are required to take current norms of taste and decency into account

pursuant to standard G2. Referring to some research and to some television

programmes containing nudity, Mr Lowe argued that in an item on nudity, it was the

masking which was indecent.

As for the requirement in standard G6, that controversial topics be dealt with in a

balanced way, Mr Lowe noted the increasing use of the practice to mask genitalia and,

he commented:

The trouble is: it is the very masking that exacerbates turpitude in the unclean!

He continued:

Masking, being the visual version of the Ôbleep' on radio, will be subject to the

same general dislike that arouses in the listener. Why should all who object to the

masking be made subjects of the internal paranoia created by inappropriate rules?

This is not only unfair, it is also: injurious to the public good.

The standard G13 prohibition on encouraging discrimination, he stated, was

transgressed as while the item on Caucasians complained about involved masking, an

item about an endangered nudist tribe in Africa had not.

Finally, as masking involved a distortion, or perversion of the matter being filmed, he

alleged a breach of the editing rules in standard G19.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 17 January 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ began:

In studying your complaint, TVNZ noted the serious tone of your letter which

would seem to suggest that you may have missed the fact that the "Newsnight"

item was never intended to be more than a light-hearted and humorous item which

made gentle fun both of those people whose idiosyncrasy is to go about en masse

unclothed, and (through the use of the hand) the moral strictures of our society.

The use of the hand, rather than the electronic blurring which might be employed

in a more serious item gave the item almost a Monty Pythonish touch - as the

producer had intended.

We would argue that no serious attempt was made in the item to conceal nudity -

and that the hand was merely a device to highlight the contrast between the naked

sun lovers and those in the community who might "tut, tut" such displays of

nudity.

As the device drew attention to the genital areas, TVNZ did not uphold the standard G1

aspect of the complaint. Standard G2 was not contravened, it argued, as the comic

device had little to do with the questions of taste and decency. TVNZ did not accept that

the balance was lacking in the humorous item and said that it did not consider that

standards G13 or G19 were applicable.

It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

Further Correspondence

In his formal complaint, Mr Lowe requested from TVNZ, under the Official

Information Act, the "exact wording of any Ôin house' censorship rule".

In its reply dated 22 January 1995, TVNZ advised Mr Lowe that each case was judged

on its merits. The guidelines in the Codes of Broadcasting Practice were supplemented

by in-house guidelines which read with regard to each classification period.

(G) "Reference to intimate sexual activity or portrayal of such activity is not

acceptable. Where the context or storyline call for aspects of undress the

portrayal should be discreet, natural and preferably distant"

(PGR) "Where depictions relating to sexual behaviour are called for such

activity should be handled discreetly and such themes should not be

allowed to dominate a programme. Portrayals embracing aspects of

undress should also be treated discreetly and only when the storyline or

context strongly justifies them"

(AO) "Sexual encounters may be implied or portrayed by discreet simulation.

They must be fully justified according to the relevancy of the storyline.

No explicit detail relating intimacy is permitted although discreet nudity

may be acceptable in the context".

TVNZ also included a note addressed to its producers which concluded:

Although it is not intended to publish externally the fine detail of the criteria, it

is not intended that it be strictly confidential either as the revelation of selected

passages could be helpful in justification of certain decision making, particularly

with relevance to context. However it must be appreciated that the guidelines

are simply that and do not override the statutory programme standards

provisions of the Broadcasting Act which includes codes of broadcasting

practice.

Mr Lowe's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 12

February 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response to the formal complaint, Mr Lowe referred it to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

He was not, he wrote, complaining about the gentle fun that might have been poked at

the residents, explaining:

I am complaining only about the masking of genitalia when the context is not one

of sex or exploitation; and the circumstances are not "contrived".

Masking, he stated, was still masking regardless of the method used or the approach

adopted and as genitalia were masked in all "frontal" shots in the item, it had involved a

consistent effort on the broadcaster's part.

Mr Lowe then hypothesised that there were only three reasons for masking (or what he

described as "this basic corruption"). They were fear of complaint, adherence to the

American way or "in-house" rules.

He then listed a number of television items which had involved nudity and again

referred to the research carried out for the Authority which indicated that evangelist

Christians were the only New Zealand groups opposed to such items. He continued:

Then there's the ÔAmerican way' a problem to which TV2 is particularly prone

(both because of the almost 100% North American prime time content, and the

apparently younger staff). The TV2 producer made the decision to mask, in the

face of certain complaint. The Programme Standard Manager's job is to defend

her decision. In so doing he suggests that the masking is making "gentle fun" of

the "moral strictures of OUR society". That assumption must be totally rejected.

Our society has never proscribed innocent nudity the way the Americans have. It

is broadcasting staff here, acting on that assumption since its full slide into

commercialisation this decade; that is my serious concern.

Although the in-house rules seemed reasonable, they allowed, he argued, considerable

interpretation in practice and they did not mention "masking" as such. Mr Lowe

maintained that the viewers were not concerned about nudity per se but at depictions

which were perceived to be sleazy.

Mr Lowe then examined TVNZ's response under the listed standards in his complaint.

With regard to standard G1, if TVNZ had drawn attention to genitalia, he queried

whether that involved a breach of standard G2. He withdrew his specific complaint

under standard G2 on the basis that TVNZ said that decency had not been the

justification for the masking.

The requirements in standard G6 for fairness and impartiality were breached, he

maintained, by not showing nudism as it really was.

As for the discrimination complaint under G13, he clarified the matter:

I didn't say the club members were represented as inferior: I said "If blocking our

Caucasian penises is established as an Ôacceptable norm', then either all other

ethnicities must be similarly obscured, or there will be clear discrimination making

one other inferior".

He persisted with his complaint that the item transgressed standard G19 as the masking

had distorted the truth of the original event.

Mr Lowe concluded his letter of referral:

My overwhelming concern is that the applied distortion is corrupting by the

implication of its message to children. It is clear from some of the research

quoted below, that that can have dangerous, sometimes devastating consequences

for them as adults. On those grounds alone, it is far safer to avoid the potential

harm. The Authority must find post-production masking of non-sexual nudity to

be discriminatory, dishonest and unacceptable.

Appended to the referral was a collection of material from several books which had

studied and advocated nudism.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 19 February 1996

When asked to comment on the referral, TVNZ advised that it had nothing to add.