BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A promo for an episode in the series The Human Body showed a naked pregnant woman and was broadcast on TV One at about 6.40pm on 17 September.

Ms Hutchings of Palmerston North complained that it was disgusting to use that imagery to sell a programme, particularly in the early evening. She pointed out that viewers who might choose not to watch the programme because they found the images offensive were not given a choice about watching the promo because no prior warning was given.

In its response, TVNZ maintained that as the image was not prurient it did not breach the good taste standard. It emphasised that pregnancy was part of the natural process of human life which the series traced from conception, through pregnancy and birth to adolescence, adulthood and finally death. TVNZ reported that although the series had an AO classification, it considered it would be a programme which many parents would wish their children to view. For that reason, it continued, it felt it important to advertise the programme during a time when it was likely to be seen by family groups. It declined to uphold the complaint.

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

For the reasons given 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 (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Promos for the programme The Human Body were broadcast at various times prior to the commencement of the series and contained extracts from upcoming programmes. A promo shown on 17 September during One Network News at about 6.40pm, and repeated at various times, including 23 September at about 9.40pm, showed a naked pregnant woman.

Ms Hutchings complained to TVNZ that it was disgusting to use that imagery to sell a programme, particularly during the early evening news hour. In particular she complained that as a viewer she had no control over whether she wished to see the image of the pregnant woman in a promo, as it was unannounced and unexpected. By contrast, she observed, because she knew that she would find the programme offensive, she could make a choice not to watch it.

Ms Hutchings also complained that the image of the woman was exploitative because there was no comparable male image shown. She emphasised that the issue for her was primarily one of choice. She noted that she did not have a choice about whether to watch an advertisement. Further, she complained, the promos were shown at a time when children would be watching television.

TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under standards G2, G13 and G24 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standards G2 and G13 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.

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:

factual, or

the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or

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

The other standard reads:

G24 Broadcasters must be mindful that scenes containing incidents of violence or other explicit material may be acceptable when seen in the total context of a programme, but when extracted for promotion purposes such incidents will be seen out of context and may thereby be unacceptable, not only in terms of the codes but also for the time band during which the trailer is placed.

TVNZ dealt first with the issue of decency and good taste. It considered that the brief shot of the pregnant woman correctly indicated to viewers the scope of the documentary series and that it showed pregnancy as part of the wonderment attached to the changes which individuals experienced in their passage through life. Had the imagery been presented in a salacious or tawdry manner, it conceded it might have agreed with Ms Hutchings, but it argued there were no such associations with this promo.

As far as standard G13 was concerned, TVNZ rejected the complaint that the promo represented women as "inherently inferior". It emphasised that pregnancy was part of the natural process which the series traced from conception through to death. To Ms Hutchings’ point that no equivalent male figure was shown, TVNZ pointed out that there was no male counterpart to a pregnant woman. In its view, the brief shot of the pregnant woman exalted the female gender rather than demeaned it.

Next it dealt with the complaint under standard G24, responding that in its view the promo accurately reflected the nature of the documentary series being advertised. As far as the time band was concerned, it advised that the AO certificate was given to the series in recognition of the fact that some families would prefer their children not to be exposed to some of the content. Nevertheless, it continued, it recognised that many adults would have encouraged their children to watch the series because of its obvious educational benefits. For that reason it said it considered it important to advertise the programme during times when it would be likely to be seen by family groups, including during news broadcasts. TVNZ did not believe it had erred by placing the trailer during the news programme, and it concluded that standard G24 was not endangered.

TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

The Authority turns first to the complaint that it was distasteful to use the image of a naked pregnant woman to promote the programme The Human Body. When it assesses a complaint alleging a breach of the good taste standard, the Authority is required first to reflect community expectations of decency and taste, and secondly, to bear in mind the context in which the image or language is portrayed. While it acknowledges that the image of a naked pregnant woman may be distasteful for some, including the complainant, the Authority does not consider that there is a widespread view that such an image breaches the standard. In particular, it does not find that its use to promote a programme which investigated in detail the process from conception to birth, including the changes to the growing foetus and to the mother’s body, breaches the standard. Indeed, the Authority considers the use of the pictures of the pregnant woman were appropriate given that one of the programmes focused in particular on the genesis of human life by following the pregnancy of one woman.

The Authority now deals with the complaint about the promo being shown during the early evening news. It does not consider that the content exceeded community expectations of good taste at that time and notes further that children who were watching the news would be likely to be accompanied by parents or caregivers.

Next it turns to the complaint that it was exploitative to use the image of a naked pregnant woman because it sexualised her in a way which demeaned women. The Authority does not agree with the complainant that this image was sexually explicit and as such breached standard G13. In its view, the woman’s body was not sexualised – the image was used simply to illustrate the development of the foetus during its gestation. It considers the promo fairly highlighted the content of the upcoming programme.

Finally, the Authority turns to the complaint that the content was unsuitable first because it was out of context, and secondly because of the time at which it was broadcast. The Authority does not find that the brief shot of the pregnant woman was decontextualised in such a way that it resulted in a breach of the standard. In its view the promo accurately reflected that the content of the forthcoming programme would focus on pregnancy and birth, and gave viewers an opportunity to decide whether to watch the programme. For the reasons outlined above, the Authority does not find that it was unacceptable for the promo to be shown during the early evening time band.

In conclusion, the Authority on this occasion is of the opinion that TVNZ’s approach to the series, and its promotion, was appropriate and in no way threatened the nominated standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
November 1998

Appendix

Tracy Hutchings’ Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 18 September 1998

Ms Hutchings of Palmerston North complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about a promo which was broadcast during the news hour at 6.40pm on 17 September. The promo advertised the programme The Human Body, and showed a naked pregnant woman.

Ms Hutchings complained that she found it absolutely disgusting that the imagery shown was used to sell a programme, not only because the woman was naked, but because of the time at which the programme was shown. In her view, it was not in accordance with the good taste standard to display explicitly a naked woman in an advertisement.

Ms Hutchings also argued that the promo did not safeguard the portrayal of people in a fair manner, and noted that there was no equivalent male figure shown in a manner as sexually explicit.

Ms Hutchings noted that her family chose to own a television and pay the fees, and that choice depended on having the ability to change channels if anything offensive was shown on television. She said she and her family would not have watched the programme because it contained images of naked women, which they would have found offensive. In making that choice, she pointed out, they would simply not watch the channel at that time. However, she argued, there was no prior warning about the content of advertisements, and they did not have control over whether to watch a promo of the kind described.

With respect to the hour of the broadcast of the programmes (8.30pm), Ms Hutchings questioned whether that was a suitable time for the series to be broadcast.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 October 1998

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standards G2, G13 and G24 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

First it examined the complaint in relation to good taste and decency (standard G2). It noted that the shot of the woman was very brief, and that it was devoid of prurience. It considered it correctly indicated to viewers that the documentary series would examine many aspects of the human body. It continued:

We must confess to being somewhat taken aback by your assertion that the image of a pregnant belly and breasts was "absolutely disgusting". We felt that like the other images in the trailer, it showed pregnancy as a natural thing – part of the wonderment attached to the changes that individuals go through in their passage through life.

It concluded that there was no breach of standard G2.

As far as standard G13 was concerned, TVNZ said it was unable to conclude that the image of the pregnant body represented women as "inherently inferior". It emphasised that pregnancy was part of the natural process which the programme traced from conception and pregnancy to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and finally, death. Noting Ms Hutchings’ argument that there was no equivalent male figure, TVNZ asked what equivalent male figure could have been included in the context. It suggested that pregnancy exalted the female gender rather than demeaned it.

Turning to standard G24, TVNZ maintained that the promo accurately reflected the nature of the series. As for the time band, it advised that the decision to give the series an AO certificate was because some of the content required it. However, it noted, many adults would have encouraged their children to watch the series because of its educational benefits. For that reason, it felt it was important to advertise the series during times when it was likely to be seen by family groups. It noted that this promo was deliberately kept away from G time programmes aimed solely at younger people. However, it was deliberately placed during information programmes, such as the news, because it was considered that the audience watching that programme would be that which most likely would have an interest in the series.

TVNZ did not believe it erred by placing the trailer during the news.

Finally, TVNZ noted in Ms Hutchings’ letter an apparent assumption that the content of the series was comparable to TV3’s Sex Life. It emphasised that it was nothing of the sort, but was a serious documentary which examined the changes to the human body during the various phases of life.

Ms Hutchings’ Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 15 October 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Hutchings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In her referral, Ms Hutchings identified another occasion when the promo was broadcast in addition to the broadcast on 17 September.

Ms Hutchings emphasised that her main point was not to debate whether pregnancy was natural or not, nor whether the people watched the programme. Her main point was having a choice whether or not to view and, she argued, when promos such as this were aired, that choice was taken away.

In response to TVNZ’s argument that the promo accurately reflected the content of the programme, Ms Hutchings argued that it could have been successfully conveyed without the need for the explicit shot of the naked woman.

Ms Hutchings asked that the Authority review TVNZ’s decision, particularly as she considered the matter of choice had not been considered seriously.

She attached a copy of a letter dated 14 October which was addressed to TVNZ’s Programme Standards Manager. In that letter she complained that TVNZ had misunderstood her complaint by asserting that she believed the image was "absolutely disgusting", when what she had said was that it was disgusting to use the imagery to promote a television programme. She emphasised that her point was that one should have the choice of whether to see this on television.

Ms Hutchings said that she supported the right for parents to choose for their children to watch the programme as a educational choice. However, she emphasised, as a viewer she did not have the choice of whether to watch a promo.

As for the time the promo was broadcast, she also noted that it had been shown during a rugby game during the afternoon on the weekend of 3 and 4 October.

Finally she repeated that her main complaint regarding the viewing of the promo was the question of choice.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 23 October 1998

TVNZ began by commenting on Ms Hutchings’ argument that she was not given a choice of whether to watch the promo. It interpreted that as implying that there should have been some kind of warning. It wrote:

As the Authority is aware TVNZ has a policy of attaching very specific and detailed warnings to material which, in its view, could cause offence to a significant number of viewers. In our opinion, this promo did not fall into that category. I can state categorically that Ms Hutchings is the only viewer to lodge a formal complaint about this matter, and as far as I can determine there have been no similar complaints to our telephonists, or to those departments that handle informal complaints. Different things may upset different people, and it is simply not possible to signpost every specific image that may upset one or two viewers.

TVNZ noted that Ms Hutchings had correctly observed that the promo had also been aired during a rugby game. It pointed out that that was not incompatible with its advice that the promo was deliberately kept away from G time programmes which were aimed solely at younger people.

Ms Hutchings’ Final Comment – 3 November 1998

Ms Hutchings disagreed with TVNZ that the image of the naked pregnant woman was necessary to illustrate the wonderment of life. In her view, that could easily have been conveyed without the image of the woman being used in the promo.

Ms Hutchings pointed out that what TVNZ described as the "wonderment of life" could not have occurred without an erection and ejaculation, yet those were not seen in the promo.

To TVNZ’s argument that no other complaints were received about the promo, Ms Hutchings responded that she was not surprised, particularly given that complainants would received a self-opinionated reply such as she had.

In concluding, Ms Hutchings wrote:

Showing a naked woman during a promotion whether it be the wonderment of life or not leaves the door open for women to be shown naked during promos for films to be aired on television. Quite frankly I feel that women get enough of this exposure on television already without encouraging it during promos as well.