BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The programme Police, broadcast weekly on TV2, depicts aspects of police work, including the apprehension of criminals. Episodes broadcast on 30 April and 14 May 1998 at 8.00pm included angry exchanges where the word "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions.

Mr Werder complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive and should not have been broadcast at a time when children were watching television. In his view, the warning preceding the programmes was inadequate and did not absolve the broadcaster of its responsibility to be mindful of children.

In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Police was a documentary about actual police work. It was all too common, it noted, that police encountered abusive people who gave vent to their feelings by using foul language. It pointed out that the programmes were preceded by audio and visual warnings about the language. In declining to uphold the complaints, TVNZ observed that the series focused on the actual work undertaken by the police, and accurately reflected their duties. It did not consider the programmes were inappropriately classified as PGR.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Werder referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

Incidents and encounters experienced by police in the course of their work are shown in episodes of Police broadcast weekly at 8.00pm on TV2. Programmes broadcast on 30 April and 14 May 1998 contained footage of police dealing with inebriated angry young people who were seen yelling abuse at the police as they attempted to carry out their policing work. The word "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions.

Mr Werder complained to TVNZ that the language used was offensive and breached the good taste standard particularly as at 8.00pm most children were still watching television. He also complained that PGR was not a suitable classification for the programme because it contained language and other content which could offend some people. Because the warning at the beginning did not specifically relate to offensive language, Mr Werder argued, it did not absolve the broadcaster of its responsibility. In his opinion, the very title Police would have made children curious about the programme and attracted their interest.

As requested by the complainant, TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G2 and G8 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

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.

G8  To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands as outlined in the agreed criteria for classification.

TVNZ emphasised that the Police series was not drama or light entertainment, but was documentary work, made in cooperation with the Police, which acquainted viewers with aspects of their daily work, and highlighted some of the difficult situations they were routinely exposed to. TVNZ suggested that it was not uncommon that when police were going about their duties they encountered abusive, often drunken, people who gave vent to their feelings by using foul and abusive language. It noted that care had been taken to remove most of the instances of foul language, but contended that had it removed all of it, an inaccurate and untruthful picture of police work would have been presented. In its view, New Zealanders should see at least in part, the sorts of situations the police had to cope with.

TVNZ pointed out that both episodes were preceded by audio and visual warnings which specifically referred to the language, and to the fact that they were filmed "as the action unfolded". Noting that standard G2 requires reference to the context in which any language or behaviour occurs, TVNZ argued that in this case, the context was a serious documentary series which looked at how the police force operated. In its view, had it deleted all the abusive language, it would not have been an accurate representation of police work. It concluded that standard G2 was not contravened.

Turning to the complaint under standard G8, which relates to classification and appropriate time bands, TVNZ first explained its rationale for classifying the programme as PGR. It accepted that the material was unlikely to be suitable for children, and that therefore the G classification was inappropriate. On the other hand, it noted, the AO classification applied to programmes containing adult themes which would be unsuitable for people under the age of 18 years. In its view, Police did not contain such themes or material and therefore an AO certificate would also have been inappropriate.

Accordingly, TVNZ continued, the programme was classified PGR. Programmes which hold this classification are:

Programmes containing material more suited to adult audiences but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or adult.

TVNZ acknowledged that the material was more suitable for adult audiences, but in its view, the series was one which parents would use their discretion in allowing their children to watch. It said it regarded the warnings as sufficient to advise those for whom language was of concern not to watch the programme. At the same time the warnings advised parents that children might need guidance during some sequences. TVNZ concluded that it was satisfied the placement of the programme with a PGR certificate was appropriate and not in breach of standard G8.

The Authority is divided in its assessment of this complaint. The majority of the Authority is of the view that even if the language was considered by some to be offensive, it did not exceed community expectations with respect to good taste because it accurately reflected actual situations confronted by the Police. The majority also notes that a clear warning was given at the beginning of the programmes alerting viewers to the fact that they contained offensive language, and that they were filmed "as the action unfolded". It should not have been surprising, the majority concludes, that the programmes contained raw footage of police carrying out some of their more unpleasant tasks. In the majority’s view, an important purpose is served when viewers are made aware of the stresses experienced by police in their daily work. On a cautionary note however, the majority advises that some of the footage came close to crossing the borderline and it has some sympathy with the reasoning in the minority’s decision recorded below. On balance, however, the majority concludes there was no breach of standard G2.

The minority disagrees. It considers that the use of the word fuck – and its derivatives – could not be defended on the basis that the programmes were documentaries which reflected the reality of present day police work. The minority points to the Authority’s 1997 research in which 1000 respondents were asked what themes caused them most concern in adult material. Among all respondents, 38% said offensive or bad language caused them major to extreme concern in movies with an R18 classification. It is reasonable, the minority considers, to extrapolate from that result that many viewers would find such language offensive in the context of a television programme screened at 8.00pm.

The minority also questions TVNZ’s description of the series as a documentary work. In its view, this type of programme is different from a conventional documentary because it comprises only actuality footage and omits a point of view or analysis of the issues raised. For example, the minority notes, the police were not invited to comment on their reaction to being subjected to the abusive tirade. Furthermore, as some of the extreme language was used by juveniles who were seen to be inebriated and behaving badly, the minority considers their provocative behaviour and display of bravado were highlighted in an exploitative manner because there was no commentary or journalistic input to provide a focus for the viewer. Therefore the minority concludes that there were no contextual factors which ameliorated a breach of the good taste standard.

Next the Authority turns to the complaint that standard G8 was breached. It is again divided in its response. The majority considers that the programme was correctly classified as one which requires parental guidance for younger viewers. It concludes that it is a matter for parents to decide whether young people in their care should watch a programme which is preceded by a clear warning advising that the language was likely to be considered offensive. The majority considers the broadcaster acted responsibly and concludes that there was no breach of standard G8.

In the minority’s view, the programme should have been screened during AO time, as the language was unsuitable for general viewing, even if subject to the guidance of a parent or adult. It acknowledges the complainant’s argument that the programme would have been attractive to children, and believes the 8.00pm time slot would have ensured that it was accessible to many children. It is not persuaded that the programme was correctly classified and would have expected an AO classification.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
1 October 1998

Appendix

K J Werder’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 25 May 1998

Mr Werder of Waitoa complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about two programmes in the series Police, which were broadcast on 30 April and 14 May at 8.00pm. He complained that the programmes, which showed aspects of police work in New Zealand, contained offensive language.

Mr Werder noted that at 8.00pm most children were still watching television, yet TVNZ had made no attempt to blot out the offending words.

Referring to the warning which preceded the programme, Mr Werder complained that it was inadequate as "it did not state that there would be coarse language, offensive language or the use of the "F" word." In his view, this was clearly not a PGR programme as shown. He argued that the very title Police would arouse children’s curiosity.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 June 1998

TVNZ advised that the complaint was considered in the context of standards G2 and G8 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

At the outset it noted that Police was a series which was intended to give New Zealanders an insight into the sort of work members of the police force did, and the situations they encountered. It emphasised that it was a documentary work.

Referring to the use of the word "fuck" and its derivatives, TVNZ advised that it was common that police in the course of their duties encountered abusive, often drunk members of the public who gave vent to their feelings by using foul language. It continued:

In this series, care has been taken to remove the worst of the language but we feel very strongly that to remove all of it would present a picture of police work which was simply untruthful. We think New Zealanders should see in at least partly unbowdlerised form, the sort of situations police have to cope with. An important aspect of the series has been to demonstrate the sometimes almost infinite patience police officers must exercise when faced with blatant provocation. The abuse hurled at them is very much part of that.

TVNZ noted that the broadcasts were preceded by audio and visual warnings which made specific reference to the language, and to the fact that the items were filmed "as the action unfolded".

It pointed out that standard G2 required the broadcaster to bear in mind the context in which the language or behaviour appeared. In this case, it argued, the context was a serious documentary series looking at how the police force operated. In its view, to delete all abusive language would not only have undermined the credibility of the series, but would present an image of police work which would be inaccurate and untruthful.

Turning to standard G8, TVNZ maintained that it was important to consider the criteria set down in the Codes of Practice for each of the three ratings. It accepted that the material shown was not suitable for a G classification as there were parts which were not suitable for the very young. The AO rating on the other hand, it noted, applied to programmes containing adult themes which would be unsuitable for people under the age of 18 years. In TVNZ’s view, Police did not contain such material. It was an information series, and as such, should be available to viewers under the age of 18. An AO certification therefore would have been inappropriate, TVNZ concluded.

It continued:

This leaves PGR which is defined as "programmes containing material more suited to adult audiences, but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or adult." The programmes did contain "material more suited to adult audiences" but at the same time they were in our view programmes about which most parents would consider using their discretion to allow their children to see. The explicit warnings were sufficient to advise those for whom language is an overriding concern not to watch the programme; at the same time the warnings indicated to parents who felt their youngsters could watch nevertheless that they may need some guidance during certain sequences.

All that is completely in accordance with the PGR classification.

TVNZ said that it was satisfied that the placement of the programme at 8.00pm with a PGR certificate was appropriate and not in breach of standard G8. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Werder’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 15 July 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Werder referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Werder accused TVNZ of having a very casual attitude to the language used, and that it was of concern to him. He repeated that in his view the language was clearly offensive to many people. Furthermore, it occurred at 8.00pm, when many children were not in bed.

He said that TVNZ’s apparent misunderstanding of children’s bedtime hours concerned him. He noted that tens of thousands of farming families did not have regular working hours, and for many after dinner, supervising homework, bathing children and the like there was no time to supervise television on the assumption that there may be a chance of offensive language at 8.00pm.

Mr Werder emphasised that in his complaint to TVNZ he had not asked for parts of the programme to be removed, he had said that offensive language should be blotted out. He maintained that removing the offensive language would not have presented a different picture from what was shown, nor would it have undermined the credibility of the series. However, he submitted, it would have made the programme acceptable as a PGR programme.

In conclusion, he wrote:

Language of this severity is not expected by the viewer at 8pm at night for a PGR rated programme. Up to now this time has been safe viewing for most children. Therefore this programme Police should have had an AO classification.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 24 July 1998

TVNZ said that it vigorously denied the view that it had a casual attitude to the use of the word "fuck" and derivations thereof. It explained that the word was left in programmes only rarely, and when its inclusion was directly relevant to the material being broadcast. When the word was used, the programme was invariably preceded by a warning concerning language.

It added:

As the Authority is aware, the most common reason for a censorship cut is to remove the gratuitous use of the word "fuck".

It advised that it had nothing further to add.

Mr Werder’s Final Comment – 3 August 1998

Mr Werder maintained that TVNZ appeared to ignore the fact that most children were not in bed by 8.00pm.

He suggested that if his complaint was rejected, other programmes with adult themes could be broadcast during times when children were watching (such as in the weekends when they were not at school). He said he stood by his original complaint and argued that the Police programme should have had an AO classification.