BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A visiting American female actor who took roles in pornographic films was

interviewed on TV2's Newsnight at about 10.45pm on 14 June 1995.

After some correspondence and telephone calls with news staff at Television New

Zealand Ltd, Mr Smits complained formally that the item was in poor taste and

unbalanced. It had breached the standard requiring good taste, he wrote, because of

the explicit sexual material discussed and it was unbalanced because, without the

presentation of the contrary view, it promoted the pornography industry.

Before receiving the formal complaint, TVNZ had written to Mr Smits objecting to

the abusive manner in his correspondence and telephone calls. In addition, it

maintained that the item was not inappropriate for a late-night audience. TVNZ later

declined to accept the formal complaint when it was received because of its abusive

nature. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Smits referred his complaint to the

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

the Authority's request, TVNZ dealt with the details raised in the complaint and,

maintaining that it was not inappropriate for late-night news show, declined to uphold

it.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined 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

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

Actor Krysti Lynn was interviewed on TV2's Newsnight on 14 June at about

10.45pm. She spoke frankly of her experiences in the filming of sex movies, her

enjoyment of the sexual encounters, the primary importance of the male participant's

erect penis and her dislike of condoms. The interview took place in an area in which

videos of what TVNZ described as sex movies were apparently displayed and

included extracts from some films in which she had appeared.

Because of the anger Mr Smits expressed following the screening of the item and his

interactions with TVNZ before and until he made a formal complaint, TVNZ declined

to deal with it. When Mr Smits referred that decision to the Authority, TVNZ then

suggested that the Authority should exercise its power in s.11(b) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989 and decline to deal with the complaint in all the circumstances.

While agreeing that the use of s.11(b) could be an appropriate response when dealing

with complaints which contained inappropriately abusive material, the Authority

advised TVNZ that it believed that it should not use the power unless the

complainant receives a warning. It also pointed out that the power in the Act gave to

the Authority, not the broadcaster, the ability to decline to deal with a complaint.

Accordingly, the Authority informed Mr Smits that it might well decline to determine

complaints in the future should they be couched in similar terms. It advised him,

nevertheless, that the complaint about the broadcast of Newsnight on 14 June had

been accepted on its merits and TVNZ was requested to respond to the alleged

breaches.

The above interaction is fully recorded in the Appendix and this decision now focuses

on the substance of the complaint.

Nominating the standards which he claimed were contravened, Mr Smits maintained

that the Newsnight item on 14 June was in bad taste and unbalanced. It was in bad

taste, he continued, because of Ms Lynn's comments about sexual practices, and

unbalanced as the item involved an interview with a spokesperson from the

pornography industry, without a countering view of the subject from an opponent of

pornography.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standards in the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice which 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.

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

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

As standard G2 accepted that context was to be taken into account, TVNZ pointed to

the hour of the broadcast and the presenter's warning, immediately before the

interview was broadcast, that it was "of an adult oriented nature". TVNZ argued that

in the context, Ms Lynn's candour in describing the business in which she worked did

not breach standard G2.

In his complaint, Mr Smits referred to Ms Lynn's performances in New Zealand

which were cancelled when she collapsed on stage. TVNZ pointed out that the item

had spoken neither of her performances nor her collapse. It had only referred to her

"flying visit" to New Zealand. As the interview was a personality piece rather than a

discussion of the sex movie industry, TVNZ questioned the relevance of standard G6.

TVNZ also commented that, because Ms Lynn expressed her dislike of the use of

condoms, both presenters at the conclusion of the interview had referred to and

supported the Aids Foundation's approach to the use of prophylactics.

In his final comment, Mr Smits withdrew the alleged breach of standard G2. Because

of the Authority's decisions on some other complaints when he had maintained that

the standard requiring good taste had been breached, he said that he was cynical about

the interpretation given to "context". He now felt that the Authority would only

uphold a complaint under standard G2 if it involved screening pornography in the

middle of a children's cartoon. He also submitted a tape of one the videos described

by TVNZ as a "sex" film (similar to those shown on the shelves in the background

when Ms Lynn was interviewed) to show that it was indeed pornography. As the

content of the videos in the background when Ms Lynn was interviewed was not in

issue, the Authority decided that it would be inappropriate to view the tape.

Having read the material and viewed the item which was screened on Newsnight, the

Authority agreed with TVNZ that it was a human interest story which was not

inappropriate for broadcast at a late hour. The Authority also concurred with TVNZ

in its critical comments about a section of the interview where the parties began to

giggle, but noted that that did not amount to a breach of the good taste standard. As it

was a personality piece, the Authority accepted that the standard G6 requirement for

balance was not relevant.

The Authority is of the opinion that Mr Smits' cynicism about the applicability of

the standard requiring good taste is unjustified, noting for example that standard G2

might have been brought into question if the interviewee had been presented as a role

model. However, the standard was not endangered on this occasion as the presenters

not only questioned her lack of support for the use of condoms, but stated explicitly

that she should not be regarded as a role model. Consequently, the standard was not

breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
26 October 1995

Appendix

Mr Smits' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 24 June 1995

Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item

involving an interview with a female actor broadcast on TV2's Newsnight at about

10.45pm on 14 June 1995. Mr Smits commented that he had been hoping to have his

complaint dealt with informally but, as that was unsuccessful, he was now making a

formal complaint.

Describing the actor as a "porn queen", Mr Smits alleged that her comments about her

sexual practices and those of her partners breached the good taste standard.

Moreover, the item was unbalanced as, without putting the contrary view, it had

interviewed a spokesperson for the pornography industry.

The balance of his complaint referred to his earlier correspondence with TVNZ about

the item. That had begun with a letter to TVNZ on 14 June when, Mr Smits alleged, a

"pandering" male interviewer had asked "mindless, irrelevant, dumb and grovelling

questions" of a "porn queen" who, because of her occupation, allowed the rape of her

body by the camera while being filmed. Such interviews on Newsnight, Mr Smits

maintained, legitimised an industry based on the hatred of women.

In a second and lengthier letter dated 17 June addressed to TVNZ's head of news and

current affairs, Mr Smits claimed that the interview was an example of TVNZ's

unethical manipulation of events. Noting that the actress had become ill and had left

the country by the time of the broadcast, Mr Smits maintained that this information

was not included in the item and, further, his inquiries at TVNZ disclosed that

Newsnight had "an agenda of promoting and endorsing and giving publicity to the

prostitution/pornography industries".

He then assessed the interview in detail.

TVNZ's reply to the correspondence before the formal complaint was received, dated

22 June 1995 and signed by the assistant to the managing editor of news and current

affairs (Mr Farman), reported that the journalist who had answered Mr Smits'

telephone enquiry, had, like other journalists on other occasions, been very upset by

his bad manners. As for the substance of Mr Smits' letters, TVNZ said that it had

explained the nature of Newsnight to Mr Smits on previous occasions. The letter

finished:

I appreciate you have genuine concerns and have expressed them in your letters.

However, I have neither the time or inclination to respond to the lengthy and

inaccurate assertions you make about TVNZ News and Current Affairs or those

who work for us.

In the formal complaint, in reply to these comments, Mr Smits described them as

"pathetic". He noted that he had spoken to Mr Farman before he had received the

letter and that Mr Farman after saying that he (Mr Smits) had needed professional

assistance, had himself lost his temper. Mr Smits listed a number of other points

which had arisen in his telephone calls with various members of TVNZ's staff.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 29 June 1995

In view of the "abusive nature" of his letter of formal complaint, TVNZ advised Mr

Smits that it declined to accept it.

Mr Smits' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 2 July 1995

Repeating his objection to the item which he described as salacious, unbalanced and

promoting live pornography, Mr Smits expressed the opinion that he had "TVNZ by

the throat". He acknowledged that there was some slight justification to TVNZ's

argument that he bullied its staff, but he asked whether it was wrong to write a letter

which adopted a critical tone.

TVNZ, he argued, broadcast pornographic material to "titillate the public". Referring

to the illness of the interviewee and the reliance of pornography on the woman's

body, he concluded:

Without her and her "public displays" of rapist's Ôfantasies' (about the

behaviour of women) - they have nothing. The industry doesn't want its

product to be Ôhuman' - they portray these Ôporn queens' as being perpetually-

on-heat-superwomen who don't have periods or bad backs or STD's ... or

appendicitis. I wonder how many Ôpunters' really gave a damn about ÔKristi

Lynn' [the actor interviewed] (or any woman for that matter) - they're probably

just really, really pissed off that they can't get a polaroid with ÔKristi' sitting on

a dildo they've stuffed down their pants. She's naked, they're not - it's a

power thing . ÔCome on Gents, don't be shy' ... How many of the closet

rapists at the Firehouse [nightclub] were really, really pissed off when she

Ôcollapsed' on the stage - disappointed I'll bet - but did they give a shit (oops)

about her. There as Ôconsumers' of (live) pornography, they leave their

humanity at home (if they've got any). And what about her Ôpromoters' - she's

on the way out anyway, and there are plenty of other Ôporn queens' to make

money out of, plenty of Ônew faces' to offer their consumers. Still it's been a

bit of a disaster ... all that advertising, the glossy Ôflyers', the TV promotion...

Yes, it's true I'm utterly and completely and unalterably cynical about these live

pornography promotions. I believe they are technically illegal and if not they

should be made so. They are dangerous and shouldn't ever be endorsed or

minimised or promoted by any programme, especially one produced by a state-

owned broadcaster. That's what Newsnight did and then had the gall to

suppress the full facts. Ironically, if they have to cut ÔKristi Lynn' open to save

her it will be the end of her career - they won't want a Ôporn queen' with

physical scars.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 3 August 1995

In its report to the Authority on the complaint, TVNZ said that Mr Smits had made a

number of abusive telephone calls and wrote:

We are strongly of the view that the formal complaint process should not be

used in the way adopted by this complainant. The tone of his letters and in

particular, the Ôname calling' contained in Mr Smits' letter of complaint of 24

June coupled with the abusive calls, entitled us, in our opinion, to decline to

accept the complaint. We maintain this view and hope that the Authority will

agree with our stance and exercise its powers under Section 11(b). If the

Authority comes to a contrary view we consider the complaint should be

referred back to us for determination by our Complaints Committee in the

normal way.

Mr Smits' Final Comment - 13 August 1995

Objecting to TVNZ's use of the word "abusiveness", Mr Smits asked what was the

difference between scathing criticism and abuse. He stated that if TVNZ was so

concerned about the ability of its receptionists, then it should make publicly available

the telephone numbers of its programme producers. He continued:

But of course, this is all a diversion. Flak put up. You will note that my letter

to Shaun Brown [TVNZ's head of news and current affairs] was perfectly

reasonable - I concede that I used the "F" word only because I had to, in context

you understand. The letter of formal complaint was a response to the attitude

and abuse levelled towards me by Mr Farman. And why did he so casually

dismiss the concerns I had - about suppression of news????....

Criticising the quality of Newsnight and maintaining that TVNZ started the current

"brawl", Mr Smits insisted that his complaint raised a serious issue of media ethics.

The Authority's Response to TVNZ and Mr Smits - 1 September 1995

While acknowledging that it had the power to decline to determine complaints under

s.11(b) in situations such as the present one, the Authority advised TVNZ that it was

unlikely to do so without warning the complainant of the possibility. The Authority

also asked TVNZ to comment on the specific complaint about Newsnight on 14 June.

The Authority advised Mr Smits of the provision in s.11(b) of the Act and informed

him that it was a power which it could well use should his complaints inappropriately

abuse broadcasters.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 15 September 1995

Expressing its strong agreement with the Authority's stance that there was no

justification for standards complaints to contain personally abusive material, TVNZ

advised the Authority of its decision on the formal complaint.

Noting that the complaint had been assessed under standards G2 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ said the item involved an interview

with actress Krysti Lynn who, as the programme reported, "had just paid a flying

visit to New Zealand". It continued:

The actress spoke in an extraordinarily candid manner about her occupation, and

what was involved in the filming of sex movies.

TVNZ emphasised the hour of the broadcast, 10.45pm, and that it had been preceded

with the warning that the interview was "of an adult oriented nature". It added:

Frankly, we believe most viewers of "Newsnight" would find the interview

interesting for there have been few people engaged in the adult film business

who have with such candour described their experiences on the set.

TVNZ also noted that Ms Lynn had made some disparaging comments about

condoms and, "quite properly" at the conclusion of the interview, the presenter

reinforced the Aids Foundation's advice on the use of prophylactics. TVNZ also

observed:

We concede that we were less than happy with the reporter entering a giggling

session with Ms Lynn. At one point, it reduced what was a straight and at

times interesting discussion to something approaching schoolboy level, and

added nothing to the item. However, these are not grounds sufficient to

constitute a breach of programme standards.

Taking into account the dialogue, the clips from Ms Lynn's films and the impression

that the interview took place in front of rows of sex videos, TVNZ stressed the

requirement in standard G2 to consider context and maintained that the interview was

not inappropriate for a late night news show.

As the interview was a personality piece and not a discussion about the material in

which Ms Lynn appeared, TVNZ did not accept that standard G6 was relevant.

TVNZ concluded:

Since it has been raised by Mr Smits, TVNZ rejects absolutely the suggestion

that the interview with Ms Lynn was in any way tied to the fact that she was

scheduled to perform here. The item was done because of the opportunity her

visit provided, not for any promotional purpose. Her performance would not

have been mentioned even if her health had allowed her to appear.

Taking everything into consideration, TVNZ has concluded that no breach of

programme standards was involved in the broadcast complained about by Mr

Smits. The complaint was not upheld.

TVNZ again records its disappointment at the manner in which Mr Smits chose

to lodge his complaint.

Mr Smits' Final Comment on the Complaint - 28 September 1995

Mr Smits began by explaining that he had been too busy to give the complaint his

immediate attention. He continued:

Regarding this complaint: so let me get this straight - a Ôporn queen' collapses on

stage in front of hundreds of her closet-rapist fans, is flown out of the country

incapacitated, her promotional tour in tatters, her Ôreputation' in tatters - and

TVNZ refer to her as just having paid a Ôflying visit'. Instead of reporting on

what actually happened (of which they were fully aware) they run an interview

devoid of any inquiry into the dangerousness of pornography. The interview is

conducted by a male reporter who has been bribed - with (of all things)

pornography ...

Noting that TVNZ did not deny that it knew of Ms Lynn's misfortune, he maintained

that the interview was a promotion and involved a "porn queen" in a room full of

"pornographic (not Ôsex') movies" who was allowed to justify herself. He maintained

that TVNZ advocated pornography and enclosed a copy of a tape of one of items

displayed to allow the Authority to decide for itself what it was.

Mr Smits said he did not pursue his standard G2 complaint as he was cynical about

the Authority upholding any complaint on the grounds of decency other than the

broadcast of "hard core" pornography in the middle of children's cartoons.

Repeating his contention that pornography degraded women, Mr Smits objected to

TVNZ's expressed admiration of Ms Lynn and he maintained that the interview was

unbalanced as, by not asking the searching questions, TVNZ was guilty of dishonesty

and bad journalism.