BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

"Sin Bin" was the title of a 20/20 item broadcast by TV3 at 8.30pm on Monday 14

August 1995. It examined the case of four rugby playing men in Inglewood. Three

were alleged to have had consensual anal intercourse with another man while the fourth

was charged with offences arising from the incident. The charges were dismissed in

the High Court. During the programme, one of the men alleged to have been involved

said it was the lowest of the low to be described as a homosexual and another stated

that it was equally as bad to be called a rapist or a homosexual.

Mr Gooder complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the item was unbalanced

generally and specifically about these two comments. Not only did the questions and

answers breach journalism ethics, he maintained that they incited divisions in society

and were in breach of the broadcasting standards.

Maintaining that the item was not unbalanced as all relevant parties had been given an

opportunity to present their views, and that it recorded the genuinely-held opinions of

the people questioned, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with the

broadcaster's decision, Mr Gooder referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1988.

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.

A 20/20 item broadcast by TV3 examined an incident in Inglewood where a man was

charged with the sexual violation and assault (attempted drowning) of another man.

Three other men who were at the party where the alleged offences took place were

said to have had consensual anal intercourse with the complainant. They were not

charged with any offences. The charges, laid some 18 months after the alleged acts,

were dismissed before all the evidence was presented.

Three of the four men who were involved were interviewed in the item, as was the

complainant although unlike the other three, he was not identified. The item

emphasised the unusual nature of the charges and contrasted the alleged behaviour

with the rugby playing lifestyle and values which were said to be important to the

four men allegedly involved.

The interviews with the men included the following questions and answers:

(Question)  Is that the situation, you can barely say "I've been implicated with

                  having sex with a man?

(Answer)    It's one of the lowest things a male can be accused of, its outrageous,

                 it's shocking eh.

and:

(Question)  In your view, what is worse, being called a homosexual or a rapist?

(Answer)   What is worse? They both go hand in hand as far as I am concerned

                 and I just hate the thought of anybody calling me that to my face.

Mr Gooder's complaint focussed on these questions. Not only had they contravened

journalism ethics, he wrote, they had incited division in society. Later, Mr Gooder

argued that the broadcast breached standards G6 and G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice and merited a public apology from the producer and journalist.

Standards G6 and G13 of the Television Code require broadcasters:

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

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

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

On the basis that all relevant parties had been given a reasonable opportunity to put

their view, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced.

As for the alleged breach of standard G13, TV3 referred to the item's tone which

reported that the three men had felt diminished in the community because of the

allegation of homosexual behaviour. Describing the questions as appropriate, TV3

said the answer in each case was the interviewee's genuinely-held opinion. As the

broadcast was a current affairs programme, TV3 considered that the comments were

exempt from the requirements of standard G13 in view of the provision in standard

G13 (ii).

In addition, TV3 questioned whether the substance of the standard had been

transgressed. Pointing out that society comprises diverse groups, TV3 said that each

answer was a heartfelt response to a question which suggested that the interviewee

had participated in what for him was an offensive act. The responses, TV3 argued,

did not encourage denigration of or discrimination against homosexuals.

Assessing first the complaint under standard G6 that the programme was unbalanced,

the Authority accepted that the significant parties in what was a most unusual

situation had been interviewed. Standard G6, it decided, had not been contravened.

Turning to the aspect of the complaint which alleged a breach of standard G13, the

Authority noted that item was imbued with a substantial element of homophobia,

reflecting the attitudes of the men interviewed. Anal intercourse for them was

unquestionably an unnatural and, probably, a perverted act. Nevertheless, in view of

events dealt with and the differing attitudes of the people interviewed, their values and

especially their attitude to sodomy was essential to the story. As it was important to

the item for these matters to be dealt with, the Authority considered that standard

G13 had not been breached as the comments fell squarely within the exception

contained in standard G13(ii).

The Authority did not agree with TV3 that the substance of the standard had not been

breached. The men interviewed held disparaging attitudes to a community group

identified by its sexual orientation because of the nature of a sexual act in which they

believed homosexuals might take part. Their comments implied that this group,

because of the possible behaviour of some of the members, was inherently inferior and

the broadcast was thus in breach of standard G13. The standard, however, does not

insist that all broadcasts be "politically correct" and includes exemptions to ensure the

airing and exchange of robust views. The comments on this occasion, although

contravening the substance of the standard, were not in breach because of the

exemption for the expression of genuinely-held opinions in a current affairs

programme.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith M Potter
Chairperson
14 December 1995

Appendix

D A Gooder's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited - 15 August 1995

Mr Gooder of Auckland complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd (through the

Broadcasting Standards Authority) about an item broadcast on 20/20 between 8.30 -

9.30pm on Monday 14 August.

The item had dealt with the alleged rape of a male by four other males and Mr Gooder

said he wanted to complain about two aspects. The first was the response of one of

the accused who, when asked what it felt like to be labelled a homosexual, said that as

a homosexual was the lowest of the low, he couldn't imagine anything worse. Another

one of the accused was asked whether it was worse to be labelled as a rapist or a

homosexual. He replied that both were as bad as each other.

Mr Gooder complained that the questions breached journalism ethics as they invited

an answer which incited division in society. He said it was the equivalent of asking a

person what it was like being labelled as a Jew, or to be thought of as a rapist or a

Maori.

In a second letter to TV3 dated 24 August, Mr Gooder expressed the opinion that he

had little chance of a fair hearing when a broadcaster investigated a complaint against

one of its own journalists. He added that standards G6 and G13 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice were breached and that a public apology from the

producer and journalist was the appropriate response.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 September 1995

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TV3 began by outlining the

background to the item:

In 1994, some eighteen months after the alleged incidents took place, a young

man informed the Police that, in December 1992, during a party at an Inglewood

house, three men had anal sex with him. The complainant said he was intoxicated

and consented to the anal sex.

He also alleged he had twice been assaulted by a fourth man who, without

consent, violated him that night by inserting his fingers into the complainant's

anus and again the next morning while allegedly attempting to drown the

complainant in a bath.

Subsequently, charges were laid against the fourth man, Michael Longstaff (Red

Dog).

The case attracted intense interest from local and national media. Although the

Court suppressed the names of those involved, the identities of the complainant

and the other four men became well known to the local community and beyond.

The case against Michael Longstaff proceeded through depositions and went to

trial. The Judge threw the case out after hearing just two of the prosecution's

five witnesses. Throughout this time those involved with the alleged anal sex

and violation were the subject of much speculation, abuse and denigration from

members of the local community and beyond. Such was the distress caused,

three of the four men elected to talk publicly to 20/20 about their version of

events and the impact the allegations had on their lives. The complainant,

unidentified in the programme, also put his views.

Arguing that all the relevant parties had been given a reasonable opportunity to put

their point of view, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint that the item was

unbalanced.

Turning to the alleged breach of standard G13, TV3 referred to the programme's tenor

in which the three accused had said that they felt diminished in the community

because of the allegations. Expressing the opinion that the item was in the public

interest, TV3 said it was appropriate to ask the following question which had elicited

the honestly-held opinion of the interviewee:

(Question) Is that the situation, you can barely say "I've been implicated with

having sex with a man?

(Answer) It's one of the lowest things a male can be accused of, its outrageous,

it shocking eh.

Although that was sufficient not to uphold the complaint as the expression of a

genuinely-held opinion is an exception to the requirements in standard G13, TV3

argued that the comments in themselves did not breach the standard. It wrote:

Any society consists of groups; male, female, ethnic, cultural and of differing

sexual persuasions. These groups are distinct, identifiable and have their own

practices, culture, beliefs and history. Their being is tangible and affects other

sections of the community. Consequently, groups within a society discuss and

at times criticise those who do not share their convictions. In this case a man is

accused of indulging in a sexual act which is clearly foreign to his own sexuality.

His reaction to a legitimate question is heartfelt and personal. In his view it is

"the lowest thing a man could be accused of". His response does not encourage

denigration or discrimination of homosexuals.

It was a statement with which viewers could agree or disagree but, TV3 insisted, it did

not advocate action against homosexuals. It was one person's perception as to what

was sexually proper.

The second exchange complained about was:

(Question) In your view, what is worse, being called a homosexual or a rapist?

(Answer) What is worse? They both go hand in hand as far as I am concerned

and I just hate the thought of anybody calling me that to my face.

Describing the question as precise, relevant and revealing, TV3 said the response was

the interviewee's genuinely-held opinion. TV3 again referred to the point that the

programme had dealt with a situation where heterosexuality appeared to be the norm.

As standard G13 could not be taken as giving the right of "one section of the

community to preclude members of another" from being questioned or expressing their

genuinely-held views, TV3 decided that standard G13 had not been contravened.

Mr Gooder's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 13 October

1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Gooder referred his complaint to the

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

Emphasising the requirement in standard G6 for an item to show balance, Mr Gooder

maintained that other sections in the community - the police, pub patrons, community

representatives - had not been given a reasonable opportunity to present their point of

view. Consequently, the item was unbalanced.

As for standard G13, Mr Gooder maintained that the programme was biased in favour

of the homophobia displayed by the three accused. He questioned the relevance of

TV3's argument that the programme had a "genuine public interest".

In reply to TV3's assertion that the response to the first question was the speaker's

honestly held view, Mr Gooder asked who determined whether a reply was honest.

In view of the homophobia displayed, he continued, it should have been edited out.

He disputed TV3's interpretation of standard G13 as to what amounted to

encouraging denigration.

Expressing pleasure that TV3 at least acknowledged the second question as

"extraordinary", he disagreed with TV3's argument that the question went to the heart

of the matter. Rather, he wrote, "the question was irresponsible and totally

unnecessary" and was part of the programme's theme to encourage homophobia. He

added:

I have no problem with the fact that "Red Dog" has genuinely held opinions

about homosexuality and equating it with rape, I simply don't want to know

them when they had no relevance to the programme.

Mr Gooder did not accept that the exemption in standard G13 (ii) for the expression

of a genuinely-held opinion was applicable. It could well have been edited out which

would have been within the spirit of the standard.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 27 October 1995

When it advised of the referral, TV3 stated that it did not wish to comment further.