BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Sexual practices were discussed by a group of secondary school students during an

item on Holmes broadcast on TV One between 7.00–7.30pm on 2 May 1996. The

programme dealt with a new government policy on sex education and contraception

and, in addition to the comment from students, included a discussion between the

Minister of Health and representatives from a number of community organisations.

Mr Noble complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the

aspect involving the students. He considered that the questions asked at that hour

were unnecessarily intimate and invaded the students' privacy.

Emphasising the relevance of the questions put to the students to the issues dealt with

in the programme, TVNZ explained the careful process followed before the item

complained about was filmed. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Noble referred his complaint to the

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

For the reasons below the Authority declines 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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Holmes programme broadcast on TV One on 2 May 1996 examined a new

government policy on sex education and contraception aimed at reducing the number

of abortions, teenage pregnancies and STDs. Reactions to that policy were sought

from high school students, and there was a discussion between representatives of

community organisations and the Minister of Health as to the implications of the

policy.

Mr Noble complained about the interview with the group of students – of both sexes –

who, among other things, were asked if they were sexually active. Mr Noble

maintained that such a question was not for airing in any public arena, and argued that

asking the question on a high-rating television programme transgressed all concepts of

decency and privacy. Then, Mr Noble continued, the interviewer proceeded to ask

searching questions regarding clinical aspects of sexual behaviour which, in his view,

rapidly became disgusting. He argued that TVNZ warranted a severe admonishment

because the material did not comply with the guidelines regarding suitability and time

of broadcast.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under standards G2

and G4 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.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

TVNZ noted first that Mr Noble conceded that he had not watched the entire

programme. It considered that had he done so, he would have had a different view of

the discussion with the students, because their remarks would have been placed in

context. TVNZ pointed out that the various points which emerged from the students'

responses were elaborated on by the panel and applied to the policy which had that

day been announced.

Acknowledging that the discussion was clinical in nature, and that the students

responded in a direct and forthright manner, TVNZ denied that there was anything

lewd or unsavoury in their answers. It did not share the view that it was "incredible"

that the students were asked about their own sexual behaviour, because that was what

the discussion was about. It considered that most parents would have been heartened

by the mature and responsible attitudes displayed. TVNZ denied the accusation that

probing into the students' sexual behaviour was prurient, responding that the story

was of direct relevance to the day's news that the government had announced a

package on contraception, abortion and sex education which would directly impinge on

the teenagers' lives as they reached sexual maturity. In the context of the debate

which was to follow, it did not believe the discussion with students about sex and

contraception exceeded the bounds of good taste and decency.

TVNZ then responded to the complaint that the students had not been dealt with

fairly, in contravention of standard G4. It explained that prior to the programme, a

detailed list of questions had been faxed to the two schools from which the students

were drawn. In each case, the school's nurse or counsellor examined the questions and

the students who were approached about appearing on the programme knew the line

of questioning which would follow. TVNZ emphasised that prior to filming, the

director ran through all the questions again and the students were told they did not

have to participate unless they wished to. Throughout the discussion a nurse and a

counsellor were present to ensure that none of the students was coerced. They were

also asked to intervene immediately if they had any concerns about the questions put.

TVNZ concluded that in those circumstances, and in light of comments made in the

studio discussion by the Minister of Health and the principal of Tamaki College, the

students were not dealt with unfairly. It emphasised that in the context of the whole

programme, the students provided an important dimension to a topical debate of

relevance to their age group.

The Authority acknowledges that the focus of the entire programme on the sexual

mores of young people would be likely to draw some criticism. However, it notes, the

context of the discussion was the announcement that day that extra funding was being

made available to educate young people, the at-risk group, of the consequences of

being sexually active. In that context, it considers the views of the young people were

relevant. With respect to the personal question regarding each student's sexual

experience, the Authority believes that was on the borderline of acceptability because

it appeared intrusive. While the Authority recognises the efforts made by TVNZ to

avoid exploiting the students, it considers it would have been helpful to viewers to

have known that the questions were given to the students prior to the discussion, that

a counsellor or nurse had approved their content, and that the students themselves

were under no pressure to participate or to answer questions they did not wish to.

The Authority does not believe a frank discussion of sexual matters is in itself a breach

of the standard requiring good taste and decency, since not only is sex education part

of the school health curriculum, but there is tolerance within families and the

community for discussions of sex and sexuality. It concludes that although one of the

questions was somewhat borderline, there was nothing in the discussion which

contravened standard G2.

Turning to the complaint that standard G4 was breached because the students were

not dealt with fairly, the Authority considers the explanation given by TVNZ of the

careful preparations made prior to broadcast to prepare the students – and to select

representative speakers – ensured that the standard was not contravened. It believes

the discussion was appropriate in the context and that the students, who represented a

good cross-section of the community, expressed their views clearly and effectively. It

concludes that standard G4 was not breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
22 August 1996

Appendix

Mr Noble's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 21 May 1996

P F Noble of Mount Maunganui complained through the Broadcasting Standards

Authority to Television New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast of an item on Holmes

between 7.00 - 7.30pm on 2 May 1996 which involved a discussion with a number of

high school students about their sexual practices and attitudes.

Mr Noble alleged that the material was indecent and that the intimate questions

invaded the students' privacy. While acknowledging that such a discussion might be

appropriate in a school health syllabus, he suggested that the inclusion of such

material in the curriculum was still controversial. He continued:

Even so this gives no justification for Holmes to ask young people specifically

and individually whether or not they have ever had sexual intercourse. Such

an intimate question is not for airing in any public arena. For Holmes to do

this on a TV show with a high rating and at a time in which restrictions on

subject material are in place transgresses all concepts of decency and privacy.

In conclusion, he said that while he felt that many overseas clips included on Holmes

were inappropriate considering the time of broadcast, nothing as unsavoury as was

shown on this occasion had been included previously.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 4 June 1996

TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G2 and G4 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

In dealing with the complaint, TVNZ noted that Mr Noble had not watched the entire

item and it maintained that the students' remarks were later placed in context. The

points which emerged were covered by a panel of community representatives who

discussed the new policy in relation to sex education and contraception introduced by

the Minister of Health.

TVNZ stated that the discussion with the students was direct and forthright, rather

than lewd or unsavoury. It noted that while Mr Noble seemed distressed by the

discussion, it argued that most parents would have been heartened by the young

people's mature and responsible attitudes. In declining to uphold a breach of G2, it

stated:

In reference to the standard, we do not feel in this day and age, a discussion

with college age students about sex and contraception goes beyond "currently

accepted norms of taste and decency", especially in the context of the serious

discussion which was to follow.

Turning to the aspect of the complaint which focussed on the way that the students

were treated, TVNZ outlined the measures taken to ensure that the students were

treated fairly.

The questions had been faxed to the schools involved for the school nurse or

counsellor to examine. The schools approached the teenagers involved to make sure

they were comfortable with the questions. Before filming began, the students were

again asked whether they were comfortable with the questions and were told that they

were under no obligation to participate and that they could decline to answer a

question even after the cameras were rolling. A nurse and counsellor were present

throughout the discussion and were asked to intervene if any matter made them feel

unhappy.

TVNZ informed Mr Noble that in these circumstances, and considering the positive

comments during the studio discussion, they felt the students had not been treated

unfairly.

In conclusion TVNZ wrote:

As indicated above we are sorry you did not watch the whole programme,

because we believe that had you seen the discussion with students in the

context of the whole debate you would, like us, have recognised that the

students added an important and worthwhile dimension to a topical debate of

direct relevance to people their age.

Mr Noble's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 18 June 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Noble referred the complaint to the

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

his referral he enclosed a letter of the same date addressed to TVNZ summarising his

arguments against the broadcaster's decision.

Conceding that the young people would have been aware of the nature of the

presentation because of the steps taken, Mr Noble maintained that they should not

have been subject to such public exposure.

He stated that the main part of his complaint was about the content and timing of the

programme, asserting:

Your comment about not viewing the complete programme is quite specious.

Decency and its antithesis are absolutes - to use the weary contextual canard to

justify Holmes' prurient probing into the sexual attitudes and behaviour of

teenagers is to insult the intelligence. For the record I watched the second part

of the programme and I cannot recollect the panel making any reference to part

one, certainly not to the matter to which I have raised strong objections.

He contended that what happened in the bedroom was not a matter for public scrutiny

It "should not be projected into family living rooms", in some cases "literally between

the soup and the dessert". He considered that the concept of restricted times for

broadcasting offensive material was really either a farce or a hoax.

Finally, Mr Noble maintained that the regulations governing broadcasting standards

were too evasive, and that this was proven by TVNZ's decision, which was, in his

opinion, subjective and insensitive to the concerns of the public.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 2 July 1996

In a short report to the Authority, TVNZ noted that it was no longer sure whether Mr

Noble had seen the whole programme as his letters were contradictory.

TVNZ denied that "decency and its antithesis" were absolutes, suggesting that the

concept of decency was subjective and constantly changing. It persisted in its opinion

that many viewers would have been heartened by the mature and responsible way that

the issues were discussed.

Emphasising that this was not a situation where a bored producer decided to get some

teenagers to discuss sex, but was a story directly relevant to the day's news, TVNZ

denied that the interviews were in any way prurient. To Mr Noble's suggestion that

bedroom behaviour should not be projected into family living rooms, TVNZ submitted

that sex education was a social issue of direct importance to all parents and students.

Mr Noble's Final Comment - 11 July 1996

In response to TVNZ's comment that he had not watched the entire programme, Mr

Noble explained that he had discontinued watching in view of the deep disgust he had

felt.

Acknowledging some room for the subjective interpretation of the concept of decency,

Mr Noble said that the concept, nevertheless, should not be watered down at the

whim of any individual or organisation. It did not equate, as the media seemed to

believe, with the lowest common denominator.