BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An episode of the game show Man o Man was screened on Channel 2 on 2 December

1994 at 7.30pm. Its all-women audience voted on which of the male contestants was

winner of the various competitions.

Mr McBride complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme

encouraged denigration of men and women, was offensively sexist and unsuitable for

children. In later correspondence he argued that it breached the good taste and decency

standard.

In its response, TVNZ explained that Man o Man was a game show which was

intended as a humorous spoof on women's beauty pageants. It noted that a humorous

or satirical work was exempt from the requirement to avoid discrimination and

suggested that both descriptions applied to the programme. It considered that because

the show was light hearted and contained slapstick comedy, it was suitable viewing for

children. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with that

decision, Mr McBride 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 declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about and

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

Authority has determined the decision without a formal hearing.

A programme broadcast weekly on Channel 2 at 7.30pm entitled Man o Man involved

a competition between male contestants, with the winner being chosen by the female

audience.

Mr McBride complained that the programme broadcast on 2 December 1994 breached

broadcasting standards because it was offensively sexist, denigrated men and was

unsuitable for screening in children's viewing time.

TVNZ advised that it considered the complaint under standards G12 and G13 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

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, occupation

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.

It explained that on its surface, Man o Man was a game show and was clearly intended

as a humorous spoof on women's beauty pageants. In its view, it stretched credibility

to believe that the show's intention was to belittle men. TVNZ noted that the

exemption in standard G13(iii) provided for the broadcast of a humorous or satirical

work, and argued that both of those descriptions applied to this programme.

In his referral to the Authority, Mr McBride complained that TVNZ had failed to

consider his complaint under standard G2 and had failed to acknowledge his concern

that the programme discriminated against both men and women. In his view TVNZ's

response constituted a breach of both standards G6 and G7 and a loss of confidence in

TVNZ's integrity with respect to its programmes.

In response to Mr McBride's concerns, TVNZ advised the Authority that its reply to

Mr McBride was despatched before it had received his elaborated complaint but that

nevertheless its decision would not have been altered by the additional standards

raised. It repeated its view that the programme was simply humorous entertainment

intended for viewer enjoyment and denied that it was demeaning to men or women in

any way or that it would have a negative impact on children.

With respect to Mr McBride's argument that had the roles been reversed in the show

it would have been discriminatory to women, the Authority observed that under the

Broadcasting Act 1989 it was required to determine complaints about programmes

broadcast and therefore would not speculate on its findings about a hypothetical

situation.

The Authority then considered the complaint that the programme was in breach of

standard G2, which requires 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.

The Authority noted that Mr McBride described the programme as a "game show" of

a sexual nature and complained that the behaviour of the women audience towards the

contestants was in bad taste because they were intoxicated before the show and

encouraged to "behave in a sexist and humiliating manner towards the contestants."

The Authority observed that the programme contained elements of beauty pageants,

game shows, talent contests and slapstick humour and both the contestants and the

all-female audience were flamboyant and uninhibited in their behaviour. The

Authority did not believe there was clear evidence that the women were intoxicated, as

alleged by Mr McBride, and its overall impression was that they were socialising in a

zany atmosphere where audience reaction and participation was encouraged. In that

context, it did not believe there was a breach of standard G2 and declined to uphold

that aspect of the complaint.

With respect to the complaint that the programme discriminated against both men and

women because it was blatantly sexist, the Authority agreed with TVNZ that the

exemption in standard G13 (iii) applied because it was humorous and declined to

uphold this aspect of the complaint.

The Authority did not agree that the programme was unsuitable for broadcast during

children's viewing time. It considered that the slapstick humour and exaggerated

behaviour was in the context of a humorous programme and would not have been

harmful to children. It declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
13 February 1995

Appendix

Mr Paul McBride's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 5 December

1994

Mr Paul McBride of Rotorua complained to TVNZ that its broadcast of the

programme Man o Man on TV2 on 2 December 1994 at 7.30 pm was in breach of

broadcasting standards.

He complained that the programme encouraged the denigration of men and was

offensively sexist and further that its negative portrayals of both men and women

were unsuitable for presentation at a time when children would be watching.

He supported the opinion of one reviewer who wrote that if it was a "Woman o

Woman" show, it would be banned and suggested that a double standard existed which

permitted the broadcast of the programme.

In conclusion, Mr McBride asserted that men were entitled to be depicted in a

dignified manner on television and suggested that if TVNZ was serious about

maintaining standards then the programme should not be broadcast at all.

In a second letter, dated 12 December, he responded to TVNZ's advice that it would

consider the complaint under standards G12 and G13. Referring to the wording of

standard G13, Mr McBride maintained that portraying the deliberate personal

humiliation of men on television was not excused by stating that it was in the

legitimate context of the programme. He repeated his concern that the programme was

shown at 7.30pm, was rated G and its audience was likely to be both sexes of any age.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 12 December 1994

In its response TVNZ suggested that Mr McBride had misunderstood the nature of

Man o Man. It explained that on its surface it was a game show which featured

contestants competing for the attention and affection of a noisy, unconventional

audience of women.

It suggested that the programme was clearly intended as a humorous spoof on

women's beauty pageants and the debate that has revolved around them and that it

was impossible to watch Man o Man without recalling some of the televised beauty

pageants in the past. In TVNZ's view it stretched credibility to believe the show was

intended as a "put down" of men.

Referring to standard G13, TVNZ noted that it contained an exemption which allowed

for a humorous or satirical work. It suggested that both descriptions applied to Man o

Man. It rejected the suggestion that men were represented as inherently inferior.

With reference to the impact on children, TVNZ believed that its light hearted nature

made it suitable viewing for children who have always enjoyed slapstick comedy.

Further Correspondence - 14 and 19 December 1994

By way of clarification, Mr McBride wrote to TVNZ on 14 December explaining that

he wished to complain also under standard G2 (good taste and decency). In his letter

of 19 December he complained that TVNZ had failed to consider his complaint under

those grounds.

Mr McBride described TVNZ's response of 12 December as a complete nonsense.

He wrote:

[TVNZ] talks about some silly feminist propaganda regarding beauty pageants

and does not at any time answer my main concern which was the portrayal of

people in such negative roles, both men and women.

He accused TVNZ of making a biased and unbalanced response with deliberate

misinterpretation. Mr McBride included a newspaper clipping of letters to the

newspaper in which another correspondent commented on the programme.

TVNZ's Response - 21 December 1994

TVNZ apologised for Mr McBride's dissatisfaction and explained that it had already

determined the complaint before his letter of 14 December arrived raising the

additional standard.

However, TVNZ explained, its decision was not changed by the addition of the new

ground for complaint as it did not believe the programme exceeded the limits of

currently accepted norms of taste and decency, especially in the context of a

humorous programme.

Mr McBride's Response - 27 December 1994

Mr McBride expressed his disappointment that TVNZ had taken a sexist stance on

the programme and claimed that if a similar show with women contestants had been

produced, it would have been rejected.

He advised that in view of TVNZ's decision and comments and the fact that Man o

Man was a controversial show, he believed it had also breached standards G6 and G7.

Mr McBride's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 5 January

1995

Summarising his complaint to TVNZ, Mr McBride wrote that his objections to the

programme were:

1. The behaviour of the female audience. He claimed they were intoxicated and

encouraged to behave in a sexist and humiliating manner towards the contestants. In

his view such behaviour was in bad taste.

2. The programme, with its male contestants and female audience was

gratuitously sexist.

3. The way the male contestants are eliminated from the competition is to be

pushed into a pool by a female model according to the audience's vote as to his sexual

desirability. In Mr McBride's view, this was in bad taste and unacceptable.

4. The programme was likely to encourage discrimination against men and

women.

5. In his view watching intoxicated women humiliating men was not a great role

model for children.

Responding to TVNZ's reply, Mr McBride wrote that he did not consider a game

show of a sexual nature to be in good taste, especially as the women were intoxicated

and deliberately sexist.

He rejected TVNZ's description of the programme as a "spoof" on beauty pageants,

stating that it would never have allowed women contestants to be treated this way in a

similar programme. As it was a controversial show, Mr McBride questioned TVNZ's

impartiality and integrity and claimed that TVNZ was not meeting the requirements of

standards G6 or G7.

Mr McBride also rejected TVNZ's argument that the exemptions in standard G13

were justified. He pointed to letters in newspapers from men complaining about the

programme.

With respect to TVNZ's claim that the programme was lighthearted and slapstick and

suitable for children, Mr McBride argued that it was of a sexual nature, encouraged

humiliation and was blatantly sexist. He wrote:

I think children should be exposed to positive role models not negative and

nonsensical situations involving intoxicated women.

In conclusion, Mr McBride claimed that TVNZ had interpreted the grounds for his

complaint incorrectly. Further, he expressed his disappointment that it had not

followed his suggestion and considered reversing the roles and having a Woman o

Woman show. In his view, TVNZ had taken a deceitful, sexist standpoint in its

defence of the programme.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 17 January 1995

Noting that it had little to add to its earlier correspondence, TVNZ submitted that the

programme was a humorous show in which the comedy was channelled through a role

reversal of the traditional beauty pageant. It also noted that the men willingly made

fools of themselves.

TVNZ repeated its argument that the programme was not demeaning to men any way,

but was simply good fun and qualified for the exemption under standard G13(iii).

Responding to the argument that the programme was sexist, TVNZ suggested that

from a female perspective it was possible to see Man o Man as less than

complimentary to women, noting that many were depicted as inebriated, mindless and

crass.

TVNZ repeated that it did not share the view that the programme was harmful to

children, suggesting that it was so far removed from reality that could not be seriously

regarded as presenting role models.

Finally TVNZ explained that because it had responded to the complaint promptly, it

had not received Mr McBride's letter asking that other standards be considered.

However, it maintained that as the crux of his complaint fell under standard G13, the

additional standards raised would not have altered its decision.

Mr McBride's Final Comment - 23 January 1995

Commenting that he believed the behaviour in the programme was improper and of

dubious quality, Mr McBride repeated that in his view the show was in breach of

broadcasting standards.

He questioned the quality and decency of the show and maintained that the

programme was blatantly sexist and led to excessive behaviour and suggested that

should the roles be reversed, women would feel very uneasy about the show.

He concluded by stating that he was simply trying to maintain standards of

broadcasting and was not reading too much into the programme, as TVNZ alleged.