BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A music video entitled "Smack my Bitch up" was broadcast at about 10.30pm on Havoc on the closedown show of MTV on 7 June 1998.

Ms MacKay of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster of MTV, that the video breached several broadcasting standards because of its portrayal of sexual violence, its exploitation of women and its promotion of contemptuous treatment of women.

In its response, TVNZ argued that contextual factors, such as the time of day of the broadcast and the intended audience, were relevant when assessing this complaint. In reaching its conclusion that no standards were breached, it maintained that there was no glamorisation of the exploitation of women nor any aspect which demeaned or represented women as inherently inferior. It argued that the main character’s behaviour was seen as unacceptable, and therefore there was no breach of the good taste standard.

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

For the reasons given below, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that standards G2 and V11 were breached. The Authority declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Decision

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

A music video entitled "Smack my Bitch up" was broadcast on Havoc on 7 June 1998 – the final night of MTV – at about 10.30pm. The song contained a lyric which sounded like ‘Smack my Bitch up’, ‘Change my pitch up’ and was repeated about seven times. The relationship between the lyric and the visuals was somewhat ambiguous, but the activities portrayed included excessive drinking – and its consequences – scenes from a strip joint, and an implied sexual encounter between the protagonist and a dancer picked up at the strip club.

It began with the protagonist making preparations to go out, and included showering, applying shaving cream and rinsing a safety razor, sitting on the toilet, pulling on trousers and shoes, drinking a slug of spirits, and then lurching through a hallway to go outside. The next scene was in a bar, where the character had several drinks of spirits in quick succession and was seen on a number of occasions lurching towards women there. The scenes in the bar included dancing and fighting, although the identity of those involved was unclear as the lighting was very dark. The character then went to the men’s bathroom, vomited in the hand basin and dragged a man out of one of the cubicles. Other men in the bathroom appeared to cower as the character entered. The scene shifted to the outside and the lights began to spin. The character then went to a strip joint where part of a strip show was shown. Aspects of the show were censored by Havoc. One of the strippers was approached and then driven home by the character. When the stripper arrived at the house, she stripped off her clothing and lay spread eagled on the bed. The scene that followed was censored heavily. The stripper then picked up her clothing and left; as she did the camera flashed to the bedroom mirror where a thin naked woman was seen sitting bolt upright. The video ended.

Ms MacKay complained that scenes in the video contravened standards G2, G13, V4 and V11 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice because they conveyed sexual violence towards women and exploitation of them. In her view, the video was a promotion and glamorisation of contemptuous treatment of women as an outlet for male frustrations over obstacles to finding sexual gratification. She argued that the gender identity twist at the end, where the character who appeared to be male turned out to have been a female, was merely an excuse to justify enjoyment of the abuse and exploitation shown. Ms MacKay described that as "an even nastier contempt" because the video-makers had attempted to get away with indulging in callous attitudes.

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standards G2, G13, V4 and V11 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which were nominated by Ms MacKay. 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:

                       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 standards read:

V4 The combination of violence and sexuality in a way designed to titillate must not be shown.

V11 Any realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour, including violent and serious crime and the abuse of liquor and drugs, must not be shown in a way that glamorises the activities.

First, TVNZ established the context of the programme Havoc. It noted that it was a programme which was intended for a "mature youth" audience, and especially that section of youth which had developed a recognisable culture in urban New Zealand. TVNZ described this group as somewhat anarchic and rebellious, and emphasised that Havoc was not mainstream television, hence its decision to schedule the programme at 10.00pm. It advised that these contextual matters were taken into account when the complaint was assessed.

TVNZ then questioned whether the complainant, in making her case that the video encouraged contemptuous treatment of women, had taken sufficient account of the twist which occurred at the end of the clip. It suggested that what might have seemed a case of nasty and chauvinistic male behaviour was suddenly challenged when it was revealed that the person at the centre of the video was actually a woman. It did not agree with Ms MacKay that the twist was included to justify the exploitation shown. In fact, TVNZ argued, it forced viewers to consider how quickly they made a stereotypical assumption.

As far as standard G2 was concerned, TVNZ argued that the harassment which was implied throughout the video assumed a different meaning when it was revealed that the perpetrator was not a man. In addition, it suggested, by associating the character with alcohol and the filth of vomit, it seemed that the behaviour was correctly depicted as being unacceptable. TVNZ agreed that had the harassment of women been seen as desirable, standard G2 would have been breached. However, it argued, at all times the behaviour of the principal character was seen to be revolting.

With reference to standard G13, TVNZ maintained that women were not demeaned or presented as inherently inferior. It argued that the main character demeaned itself, and perhaps correctly reflected the view that anti-social behaviour against any group was unacceptable. However, it did not accept that standard G13 was breached.

Turning to standard V4, TVNZ advised that it did not find the video in the least titillating. It observed that some of the most explicit shots of nudity were censored but reassured Ms MacKay that, even in its original form, the material was far from "titillating". It said it did not find a combination of violence and titillation, and therefore concluded that standard V4 was not relevant.

When it dealt with the complaint under standard V11, TVNZ advised that it had assumed the complaint related to glamorising anti-social treatment of women. It reiterated that the video contained a far from glamorous portrayal of the person seen to be harassing women and therefore no breach of standard V11 occurred.

When she referred the complaint to the Authority, Ms MacKay elaborated on her argument. Referring again to the gender-twist at the end of the video, she argued that the technique was purely a "sly and malicious device" used by the video makers to excuse them for indulging in what she described as "a vicious debauched sex-fest fantasy." Ms MacKay rejected TVNZ’s description of the gender twist as a "stereotype challenge". She argued that the notion that only males were responsible for sexual harassment, violence and exploitation of women could not be described as stereotypical since it was in fact a highly accurate portrayal of reality.

With respect to TVNZ’s argument that the context ameliorated any possible breach of standards, Ms MacKay responded that she was a member of the demographic group described and that she, and many others in her peer group, considered this video a vicious excess of her peer group culture and did not support it. She argued:

Those who take things to excess are not a privileged group who have different rights that allow them to glamorise unwelcome denigration of any group they like, in any way they like, for their entertainment. Such material is NO more acceptable late at night.

Ms MacKay then dealt with TVNZ’s argument under standard G2. She disagreed with TVNZ that the negative treatment of women was depicted as being unacceptable behaviour, and noted that in her personal experience the video was predominantly popular with males.

With respect to standard G13, Ms MacKay accepted that the standard was not exactly relevant as the video did not directly represent women as inherently inferior or encourage discrimination as such. However she argued, it had the potential to incite contemptuous treatment of and violence against women, which she suggested breached the spirit of standard G13.

Turning to TVNZ’s claim that the video was not titillating, Ms MacKay responded that it was clear from the hosts’ reaction that they were "exceptionally titillated" by the video. She observed that in her view that had been particularly obvious the first time they had played it. Then, she noted, it was one of the few videos selected to play for the MTV closedown show. Ms MacKay maintained that the video undeniably breached standard V4 because it was absolutely designed to titillate. She believed that anyone honest who understood the contemporary music culture would concede that.

In dealing with TVNZ’s response under standard V11, Ms MacKay argued that the video represented an extreme example of highly fashionable anarchic attitudes. She described it as "New Laddery" – a defiant worship and pursuit of all the favourite macho forms of hedonism, which included unlimited amounts of alcohol, debauchery and abandon, with a lack of concern for the negative effects on others. Referring to the band Prodigy, Ms MacKay wrote that she considered the kind of brutal, wild, excitable energy the band disseminated was harmless as long as it was not converted into anti-social behaviour and directed at anyone. In her view, the band had crossed the line when it promoted the abuse of women as an outlet of aggression in this video.

Ms MacKay concluded with an observation on the implications of the male domination of the music scene in New Zealand. She also observed that a majority of people, particularly women, did not like or accept the current mainstream proliferation of soft, and sometimes not so soft, porn.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority begins with some preliminary observations. First it records that it has had the benefit of informal consultation with a variety of people familiar with the popular music scene in New Zealand in its assessment of this complaint. It has also received a copy of the Office of Film and Literature Classification’s decision under s.38(1) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 in which the audio cassette containing the song "Smack my Bitch up" was classified as unrestricted. The Authority finds the reasoning in that decision gave it a helpful context for the determination of this complaint.

The Video

Smack my Bitch up contains a lyric repeated about seven times which is difficult to decipher in the soundtrack but sounds like ‘Smack my Bitch up’, ‘Change my pitch up’. The meaning of the lyric is somewhat ambiguous. However, when the words are juxtaposed with the visuals, it appears they relate to behaviour which has anti-social elements, including aggression, excessive drinking and a sexual encounter which could involve either prostitution or random promiscuity.

The visuals invited viewers to conclude that the principal character was a male. That impression was reinforced by the fact that the lyrics were chanted by a male voice. However at the end of the video it transpired that the protagonist was a woman. The Authority records that it had some difficulty in reconciling the scantily-dressed, waif-like creature seen at the end of the video with: the androgynous arms and hands which turned off the shower and applied shaving cream, lifting the lid of the toilet, getting dressed in large-sized white sneakers, the reaction of the men in the men’s toilet who appeared to be intimidated when the character entered, the physical strength required to drag a man out of a toilet cubicle, the reaction of other women when threatened by the character, the reaction of the strippers to the character, and taking a dancer from the strip club home.

The Authority’s task however is to determine whether the video breached the nominated standards.

Standard G2 – good taste and decency in context

In the Authority’s view, the behaviour portrayed on the video was provocatively anti-social. It included harassment and aggression against both men and women, and highlighted some of the more sordid aspects of excessive consumption of alcohol such as vomiting. The main character was seen to drive a car, in spite of clearly being very drunk. Scenes from the strip club and the sexual encounter which followed the visit to the strip club were moderately explicit, although the most explicit aspects were censored by the Havoc hosts by superimposing posters interjecting "Crikey", "Christchurch", "Flip’n Heck" and other exclamations. It was clear from the context why those scenes would have been censored.

In the Authority’s view, the behaviour described challenged the limits of what is acceptable on free to air television. As it is required to do, the Authority examines the item in its context to ascertain if there were any contextual factors which might have mitigated a possible breach of standard G2.

First, it considers the genre itself. The Authority acknowledges that rock videos form a distinct genre in themselves, in which a degree of anti-social behaviour or rebellious content is common, and which are targeted at an older youth audience. Secondly, it considers the hour of the broadcast and likely viewer expectations at that time, on a youth music-dedicated channel.

While it acknowledges that 10.30pm is clearly adult viewing time, a majority of the Authority nevertheless finds that the item focused on and condoned anti-social behaviour and illegal activity to the extent that it exceeded community norms of decency and good taste. Further, it does not consider the fact that the target audience for the programme is young adult viewers in itself ameliorates the breach, as it considers the content was unsuitable for any time slot, or any audience. The majority believes this was implicitly understood by the presenters who, upon introducing the video, noted that there had been a "hullabaloo" about it when it was released, and who appeared uncomfortable with saying the word "bitch" in its title. It accordingly upholds a breach of standard G2.

The minority declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint. It considers that the late hour at which the video was screened showed a responsible attitude on the part of the broadcaster, because it clearly identified it as being more suitable for adults. It notes that although anti-social and unpleasant behaviour was depicted, it was clearly presented as being undesirable. It concludes that it fell marginally short of a breach of standard G2.

Standard G13 – prohibition on material which represents women as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against them

In its consideration of this standard, the Authority reiterates its view, following the reasoning in Decision No 62/94 in which it considered the broadcast of a Playboy programme, that standard G13 is an absolute standard which is not able to be interpreted to take into account the contextual arguments considered above under standard G2.

Standard G13 is breached if women are portrayed in a way which represents them as inherently inferior or if the content is likely to encourage discrimination against them.

The Authority takes into account the fact that the video was deliberately and provocatively anti-social, and obviously designed to have shock value on this account, and that this would have been obvious to its target audience. In the Authority’s view, the anti-social behaviour of the protagonist did not victimise or treat as inferior any of the women portrayed, or encourage discrimination against them. In reaching its conclusion that the video did not cross that threshold and thus breach the standard, the Authority notes that the women encountered – and the protagonist – were seen to be assertive in their rejection of the protagonist’s sexualised approaches and behaviour. In addition, it notes the apparent gender-reversal at the end of the video, whereby it was revealed that the protagonist was in fact a woman and that she was responsible for the kind of loutish behaviour which normally might be expected of hooligan males.

Standard V4 – violence and sexuality in a way designed to titillate must not be shown

The Authority notes that TVNZ maintained that there was no aspect of the video which it considered combined violence and sexuality in a titillating way. It pointed out that some of the most explicit shots were censored, but maintained that even in its original form, the material was not titillating.

In order for the standard to apply, a combination of violence and sexuality must be present and combined in a manner designed to titillate the viewer. The Authority does not find the standard is breached.

Standard V11 – glamorisation of anti-social behaviour, including violent and serious crime and abuse of liquor and drugs

TVNZ advised that it assumed this aspect of the complaint related to glamorising anti-social treatment of women. It concluded that as the person seen to be harassing women was far from glamorously portrayed, no breach of the standard occurred.

The Authority acknowledges Ms MacKay’s observation that the video represented an example of highly fashionable anarchic attitudes. It understands that such attitudes may have currency among the video’s target audience. However, its task is to decide whether the broadcast has complied with broadcasting standards.

First it deals with the anti-social behaviour portrayed. It does not agree with TVNZ that it was confined to the anti-social treatment of women. In the Authority’s view, it also included excessive consumption of alcohol, a visual reference to drugs, scenes of mauling, fighting and scuffling, vomiting, and driving while intoxicated. In addition, the Authority concludes that the activities were portrayed realistically and thus standard V11 was applicable.

For a breach of the standard to occur, the activities portrayed must be shown in a manner which glamorises them. A majority of the Authority considers that by portraying the principal character’s behaviour in a manner which attracted no censure or negative consequences, the activities were glamorised to the extent that the standard was breached. In particular, it refers to the unprovoked violence against both men and women, the gratuitous groping of women, and the large quantities of alcohol consumed, coupled with driving while intoxicated.

A minority disagrees. In its view, the protagonist’s actions were clearly shown to be repellent. It also considers that within the context of a pop video designed for a youth audience, censure is not to be expected. Since it considers there was no doubt as to the unattractiveness of the behaviour depicted, it finds no breach of the standard.

Conclusion

The Authority has considered this complaint in the context of the language and images of music videos in popular youth culture, and the challenge they traditionally represent to orthodoxy. It acknowledges that at the hour at which the programme was broadcast, and in the context of the show Havoc, greater latitude is permissible with regard to content than earlier in the evening when younger and more impressionable viewers are likely to form part of the audience.

However, contextual considerations such as the target audience and the time of the broadcast do not ameliorate all potential breaches of standards. Overall, a majority of the Authority finds the video was not suitable for broadcast on free to air television because of the anti-social behaviour and provocative imagery portrayed.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that a music video entitled "Smack my Bitch up" which was broadcast on Havoc on MTV by Television New Zealand Ltd on 7 June 1998 at 10.30pm breached standards G2 and V11 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13 and s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority has been divided in its conclusions, and accordingly, while the majority finds a breach of two standards, it does not consider a penalty to be appropriate on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
10 December 1998

Appendix

Ms R MacKay’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – undated

R MacKay of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast of a music video entitled "Smack my Bitch up" on Havoc on MTV on 7 June 1998.

She complained that scenes in the video contravened standards G2, G13, V4 and V11 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice as it portrayed sexual violence and exploited women.

She wrote:

I think a large sector of the population would see the video as a (blatant and enthusiastic) promotion and glamorisation of contemptuous treatment of women, as an outlet for male frustrations over obstacles and complications to finding (sexual) gratification.

In Ms MacKay’s view, the overall tone of the video gave a sense of "a gleeful open season on women" and she believed it would inspire some men who harboured resentments over being knocked back or humiliated, to act in a similar way.

Ms MacKay considered that using the gender-identity twist at the end (when the supposedly male character turned out to be female) as an excuse to justify the abuse, was "an even nastier contempt".

Ms MacKay concluded:

TVNZ wouldn’t dream of screening anything so insulting and vicious if it targeted a racial group. But though women are on the receiving end of very significant levels of victimisation by men, you apparently still regard them as fair game. It’s a bitter experience to see you condone (by screening it) such material.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 7 August 1998

TVNZ advised that it considered the complaint under the standards nominated by Ms MacKay.

Before it commented on the content of the video, it considered it appropriate to place Havoc in context. It maintained that in any assessment of programme standards, context played a big part, and although it was obliged to comply with the statutory Codes of Practice, its interpretation of them changed according to the context. It argued that the nature and expectations of the audience and the hour of the day at which the programme was broadcast always featured as contextual factors.

TVNZ explained that Havoc was developed for a "mature youth" audience, especially that section of youth which had developed a recognisable culture in urban New Zealand. It described them as partygoers, who liked their music and knew their musicians, who were somewhat anarchic and displayed "the rebelliousness which characterises every generation gap." It noted that it was not mainstream television, hence its decision to broadcast it at 10.00pm.

Turning to Ms MacKay’s complaint that the video demeaned women, it questioned whether she had taken sufficient account of the twist which occurred at the end when it was revealed that the person who had harassed women was actually a woman herself. In TVNZ’s view, that forced a rethink about the video’s message. It wrote:

Suddenly what might have seemed to be a straightforward case of nasty and chauvinistic male behaviour becomes something of a challenge.

TVNZ did not agree that the surprise switch at the end was an excuse to justify "enjoying the abuse and exploitation shown". In its view, the switch had the purpose of forcing the viewer to consider how quickly they would interpret a situation into a stereotype.

As far as standard G2 was concerned, TVNZ considered that the harassment implied took on a different character when it was revealed that the perpetrator was not a man. Further, it argued, the harassment was not seen as a desirable thing, and in fact the behaviour of the main character was at all times revolting and seen to be so. It concluded there was no breach of the standard.

In reference to standard G13, TVNZ asked who it was that was represented as inherently inferior and against whom was discrimination encouraged. It did not believe that the video demeaned women and thereby represented them as inherently inferior. In its view, the main character demeaned itself, and perhaps correctly reflected the view that anti-social behaviour against any group was unacceptable.

It did not accept that standard G13 was breached.

As far as standard V4 was concerned, TVNZ advised it did not find it titillating in the least. It pointed out that some of the most explicit shots of nudity were covered by "censorship" signs put in by Havoc. However, it argued, even in its original form, it was not titillating. It concluded that the standard was not relevant.

TVNZ advised that it had assumed Ms MacKay’s reference to standard V11 as the "glamorising" of anti-social exploitation of women. It repeated that in its view, the character was far from glamorously portrayed. It found no breach of standard V11.

TVNZ said it was unable to conclude the broadcast glamorised the exploitation of women as Ms MacKay suggested.

Ms MacKay’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 4 September 1998

In a letter dated 4 September 1998, Ms MacKay advised that she was dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response and referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In a letter received on 16 September 1998, Ms MacKay gave the reasons for her referral.

She described the video thus:

This is a notorious video featuring an anonymous character on a wild intoxicated night out, committing lots of relatively petty but nevertheless very invasive public sexual assaults on women, along with other obnoxious behaviour towards other people, and then visiting an explicit strip show and taking a sex worker home, with graphic sex scenes including some grotesquely pornographic shots.

In Ms MacKay’s view, the two main arguments TVNZ used to defend the video were weak and lacking in sincerity and integrity. The first was the "escape route" that the video itself furnished. She pointed out that there were many indications that the character was a male – lifting the toilet seat, holding the can of shaving cream, androgynous limbs and clothes in contrast to what turned out to be an otherwise ultra "feminine" woman. Further, she noted, no one betrayed surprise at being assaulted by a female, or at a woman being in a men’s pub or that the guy "she" assaulted in the toilet cubicle cowering from a woman. She believed the twist was just a malicious device by the video’s makers to get themselves off the hook for indulging in a debauched sex-fest fantasy.

Ms MacKay described TVNZ’s stereotype challenge of the video as "callously evasive and irresponsible". She wrote:

The idea that only males are responsible for sexual harassment, violence towards and exploitation of women doesn’t even qualify as a stereotype ie an "unduly fixed mental impression" – because it in fact does have an extremely high degree of accuracy. Real-life female characters such as the video’s one have barely been seen before or since – unless this has actually spawned a few fashion-victim copyists.

As for TVNZ’s context argument, Ms MacKay responded that she was a member of the demographic described. She said that along with many others, she saw this as a vicious excess of her peer group culture and did not support it. She added:

Those who take things to excess are not a privileged group who have different rights that allow them to glamorise unwelcome denigration of any group they like, in any way they like, for their entertainment. Such material is NO more acceptable late at night.

Ms MacKay disagreed with TVNZ’s claim that the negative treatment of women was depicted as being unacceptable.

She agreed that standard G13 did not directly fit as the video did not represent women as inherently inferior, or encourage discrimination as such. However, she argued, it did incite contemptuous treatment of women, which she suggested was part of the spirit which the standard was intended to cover.

With respect to standard V4, she noted that TVNZ claimed it had not been titillated. However she noted, the Havoc hosts made no secret that they were "exceptionally titillated". She pointed out that the first time they screened it they were "besides themselves with glee" and they then selected it as one of the few videos to play for the MTV closedown show. In Ms MacKay’s view, the video was "ABSOLUTELY" designed to titillate.

Ms MacKay argued that standard V11 was definitely breached, and described the video as an extreme example of highly fashionable anarchic attitudes, as defined by the term "New Laddery". She explained that it was:

…sort of defiant worship and pursuit of all the favourite macho forms of hedonism including unlimited amounts of alcohol, debauchery and abandon with a lack of concern for negative effects on others.

Ms MacKay pointed out that the group Prodigy, which was responsible for the music video, were "music gods and fashion icons" and as such, she argued, any anti-social behaviour they portrayed in an enthusiastic titillating form was glamorised.

According to Ms MacKay, women seldom featured on Havoc except in purely sex-related contexts. She acknowledged this was partly understandable as it reflected the male domination of the music scene in New Zealand but, she argued, it was also a perpetuating influence for that situation. She noted that the hosts had recently acknowledged on air that they had been sexist, and had started including more women in non sex-related contexts.

Ms MacKay expressed her concern about the current enthusiasm of mainstream media to embrace pornographic material. In her view, there was a failure to face the fact that there was not much sexual material around that did not also exploit, degrade or insult women.

She maintained that a majority of people, especially women, did not like or accept the current mainstream proliferation of soft and sometimes not so soft, porn. She concluded:

I trust the BSA has the guts and self-assurance to acknowledge the difference and I very much hope that you find more than a G2 breach.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 23 September 1998

In TVNZ’s view, Ms MacKay was being very dogmatic about what the video was concerned with. It submitted that at the very least it was ambiguous, and "probably multivalenced". It held to the view that the twist at the end was a challenging development which threw into question many of the assumptions about content which Ms MacKay held.

TVNZ questioned upon what basis Ms MacKay claimed that the video was predominantly popular with males. It suggested it was popular with anyone who enjoyed the work of Prodigy, which was one of the world’s most popular bands.

TVNZ held to the view that the track was not titillating.

It noted that the producer of Havoc was a woman who had considerable understanding of the culture of modern music, having written about it and reviewed new releases for the Herald. TVNZ reported that she did not agree with Ms MacKay’s assertions, or her conclusions about the intent of the "switch" at the end of the video.

TVNZ pointed out the letter of referral went beyond the original letter of complaint. It urged the Authority to disregard those matters not raised in the original complaint.

Ms MacKay’s Final Comment

Ms MacKay did not wish to comment further.