BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A controversial advertisement about French nuclear testing, which had not been

accepted for broadcast by TVNZ, was shown on Holmes on TVOne at 7.00pm on 24

August 1995.

Mrs O'Brien complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was

in poor taste to screen an advertisement which had been banned and that it was

unsuitable for broadcast at a time when children might be watching.

TVNZ responded that while the advertisement had been deemed unsuitable for

broadcast in regular commercial breaks, it had not been banned. It regarded it as

appropriate to challenge the propriety of the advertisement in the context of a current

affairs programme, where the introduction made clear that it was controversial and that

viewer discretion was advised. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold the

complaint, Mrs O'Brien referred it 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 Authority has viewed the item complained about and has read the correspondence

(summarised in the Appendix). As is its usual practice, the Authority has determined

the complaint without a formal hearing.

A television advertisement expressing strong views about the French nuclear testing

programme was deemed unsuitable for commercial use by the Television Commercials

Approvals Bureau (TVCAB). It was shown by TVNZ during the Holmes programme

on TV One on 24 August 1995 at 7.00pm. The advertisement, which featured a

munitions factory where nuclear warheads were being made, concluded by showing a

large military rocket protruding suggestively from the trousers of a French general.

Mrs O'Brien complained to TVNZ that in spite of a warning by the presenter

advising parents to exercise their discretion in allowing children to view the item, it

was objectionable and should not have been broadcast in family viewing time. She

questioned why an item which had been banned could be broadcast on the Holmes

programme.

In its response to the complaint, TVNZ first clarified the status of the advertisement

which, it noted, had not been banned but had been the subject of a recommendation by

the TVCAB that it should not be broadcast in commercial time. It then proceeded to

examine the complaint under standards G2 and G12 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.

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

during their normally accepted viewing times.

TVNZ argued that it was appropriate to examine the decision of a body charged with

regulating material available to New Zealanders and that the advertisement was, from a

journalistic point of view, well worth showing. It also suggested that it was very

different to screen the advertisement in a current affairs programme than it would have

been during a commercial break. It noted that the presenter introduced it as being a

controversial advertisement and went on further to advise that some viewers might be

offended. TVNZ then drew attention to the climate of opinion about France and

nuclear testing which prevailed when the broadcast was made.

Turning to the standards, TVNZ maintained that standard G2 was not breached

because the item was introduced as being about a controversial advertisement and was

preceded by a clear warning that it might offend some viewers. As far as standard

G12 was concerned, TVNZ considered that since a warning was given and there was

ample time for viewers to ensure that their children were not watching, the standard

was not breached. It also suggested that since Holmes was unlikely to be selected as

first choice by unattended children, it could be assumed that any children who were

watching were in the company of adults. Therefore, TVNZ argued, it had fulfilled its

obligations under the code and the responsibility lay with parents as to whether they

permitted their children to watch the item.

In its assessment of the item, the Authority took into account a number of contextual

considerations, including those highlighted by TVNZ. It noted first that the presenter

advised parental discretion and explained that a decision had been made that the

advertisement should not be run in normal commercial time. In fact, the Authority

learned, the decision not to run the ad was based on a recommendation made by the

TVCAB and not, as the presenter said, because of a decision made by the Advertising

Standards Authority. Secondly, the Authority observed, the advertisement was

screened in a current affairs programme at a time when public sentiment was largely

opposed to nuclear testing. It considered that satirical comment about the French

decision to persevere with its testing programme was appropriate within that context.

As far as the content of the advertisement was concerned, the Authority could

understand why the TVCAB made the recommendation that it not be screened during

normal commercial time, and why the major broadcasters chose to comply with that

recommendation. However, its screening in a current affairs context was very different

from screening during an ad break for a number of reasons. First, there was an

opportunity to give parents a warning that the item might not be suitable for children.

Secondly, an explanation was given about why the advertisement was produced and

why it was not going to be run during commercial time and finally, it was screened on

only one occasion. Based on these considerations, the Authority concluded that

standard G2 was not breached.

Turning to the alleged breach of standard G12, the Authority noted that the

broadcaster's obligation was to be mindful of the effect any programme might have on

children. It considered that TVNZ, by advising parental discretion, had been mindful

that children could be watching and that parents might wish to exclude them. In

reaching its conclusion that the standard was not breached, the Authority advises that

it was not influenced by TVNZ's assertion that Holmes is not watched by unattended

children.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
16 November 1995

Appendix

Mrs O'Brien's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 24 August 1995

A complaint from Valerie O'Brien of Invercargill, addressed to the Advertising

Standards Complaints Board, was forwarded as a formal complaint to Television New

Zealand Ltd. Her complaint alleged that the broadcast of an advertisement relating to

nuclear testing in the South Pacific on Holmes at 7.30pm on 24 August 1995 breached

broadcasting standards.

She argued that in spite of the warning to parents to use discretion in allowing children

to view what some might see as objectionable material, the item should not have been

shown in prime viewing time. She questioned why TVNZ was allowed to screen an

item which had been banned by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, asking whether

the presenter's action had the support of TVOne and if so, of what use was the

Authority?

In a second letter, dated 11 September, she clarified the basis for her complaint. She

wrote:

The advertisement in question featured a military-type engagement in which a

huge rocket was frequently used to attack, and which at the end of the

sequence was shown to be an out-sized penis, attached to a figure in what

appeared to be a French uniform.

Mrs O'Brien objected to the screening of the advertisement on the grounds that it

contravened accepted standards of decency and good taste and that it was screened at

a time when children would be watching.

She concluded that she found the item most offensive and questioned its use,

particularly when it had been objected to by the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 18 September 1995

Before examining the detail of the complaint, TVNZ first explained the status of the

advertisement which, it conceded, was not clear from the item. It noted that

advertisements were examined by a regulatory body, the Television Commercials

Approvals Bureau, which had recommendatory powers only. As a result of the

TVCAB's recommendation, the major broadcasters decided not to screen the

commercial although, it noted, one of the minor broadcasters had done so.

TVNZ suggested that a commercial screened during a current affairs programme was

very different from one screened in a commercial break. On this occasion, the

presenter had advised that it was controversial and warned that some viewers might be

offended. TVNZ's view was that from a journalistic point of view, it was worth

showing, because it showed viewers where the boundaries of acceptance lay among

those who make decisions about what shall be screened.

TVNZ also drew attention to the climate of opinion about France and nuclear testing

at the time. It added:

The fact that an advertisement urging support for the peace flotilla and made

by some of New Zealand's more creative people was found unsuitable for

broadcast was, in our view, an interesting and relevant angle on the wider

story. The advertisement certainly reflects an unusual depth of feeling on the

matter of French testing.

With respect to standard G2, TVNZ did not believe the standard was breached

because it had been clearly signalled that the advertisement was a controversial one and

that it might offend some viewers. As far as standard G12 was concerned, TVNZ

considered that enough warning was given for parents to remove children from the

room or to turn the television off. It added that since Holmes was unlikely to be a

programme unattended children would choose to watch, it could be assumed that child

viewers would be watching with adults. It did not consider either standard was

breached.

It offered its apologies to Mrs O'Brien, but added that in its view, the item was

"pertinent, interesting and (to many) amusing."

Mrs O'Brien's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 3 October

1995

Mrs O'Brien objected to the reasons given by TVNZ for rejecting her complaint. She

did not accept that because the advertisement was made by some of New Zealand's

most creative people, it should be allowed to go to air. Also, she did not accept that it

was justified because it reflected the depth of public opinion at the time or that it

could be assumed that most child viewers would be in the company of adults at the

time the item was shown. She repeated that she objected because she considered the

advertisement contravened standards of good taste and decency.

In conclusion, I object MOST STRONGLY to the tone of TVNZ's reply,

which is both patronising and smacks of paternalism. I regard it as a

gratuitous insult to my own, or any other mature adult's intelligence.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 11 October 1995

TVNZ emphasised that it believed there was legitimate news value in letting viewers

know about material which had been kept from the public by the authorities. It added

that obviously there were many occasions when it would be inappropriate to show

banned material. It wrote:

We believe the content of the commercial was not such as to cause offence

presented in the context of a news/current affairs programme. It was an

"oddity" item which effectively asked the viewer whether they agreed with the

recommendation of the Television Commercials Approvals Bureau.

TVNZ apologised that Mrs O'Brien had found its response to be patronising and

paternalistic, adding that it was not intended to be so. It believed it was a genuine

attempt to explain TVNZ's position.

Mrs O'Brien's Final Comment - 18 October 1995

Mrs O'Brien did not agree with TVNZ's contention that if an article was newsworthy

then it did not matter if a ban was put on it. She also did not believe that the TVCAB

would have taken its action without careful consideration. No matter the context, she

continued, the fact remained that she was offended, so much so that she was prepared

to make a formal complaint and to refer it to the Authority.