BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A telecast of the rugby test between New Zealand and Australia was broadcast on TV

One beginning at about 3.00pm on Saturday 16 August 1997.

Mr Lord complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, of

obscenities disclosed by language used and gestures made by the players during the

test. He also considered that the delayed broadcast, and a replay of one of the

incidents, was in violation of the broadcaster's responsibility to ensure that acceptable

language was used.

In response, TVNZ indicated that the standard of language used on sports fields was a

matter for sports administrators and that swearing on sports fields was widespread. It

also maintained that the sequences reflected the reality of what went on during the test

match, that the replay was relevant and that, in the context of a test match, the

language used would not be offensive to its audience.

Dissatisfied with that response, Mr Lord 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 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). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The rugby test between New Zealand and Australia was broadcast by TV One on 16

August 1997, beginning at about 3.00pm. The coverage included some of the gestures

made and language used by the players during the course of the match, some of which

were included in close-ups of replays of the match.

Mr Lord complained to TVNZ about the language and gestures screened during the

broadcast and replays. He inquired whether the broadcast was delayed and, if so,

questioned why the offending portions were not edited out. He also expressed concern

about the replays and close-ups. Finally, the complainant questioned whether the

broadcaster made sporting organisations aware of broadcasting standards, and whether

it emphasised that adherence to those standards was integral to its support of sport.

TVNZ examined the complaint under standards G2, G5, G8, 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.

G5   To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

G8   To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands as

outlined in the agreed criteria for programme classifications.

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

their normally accepted viewing times.

In response to the complaint, TVNZ indicated that the standard of language used on

sports fields was a matter for sports administrators. It pointed out that swearing on

sports fields was widespread, that the sequences reflected the reality of what went on

during the test match, that the replay was relevant and that, in the context of a test

match, the language used would not be offensive to its audience.

The broadcaster did not consider that, in the context of a trans-Tasman rugby match,

the standard of good taste and decency had been breached. It also noted that its own

commentary team had condemned the use of the strongest word which would have

been heard by a television audience, and the use of the word was also later apologised

for by the player who had used it.

Referring to the alleged breach of standard G5, TVNZ responded that televising "the

reality of what goes on at a rugby test match" was not a failure to show respect for

the law, when the player's swearing could only be a matter for arrest if a complaint

was laid.

TVNZ expressed surprise at the complainant's suggestion that coverage of a major

rugby test match should be considered as indicating anything other than a "G"

classification. In reference to standards G8 and G12, the broadcaster noted that the

game was supported by many schools, crowds at test matches comprised large

numbers of school parties, and that the interests of both children and adults were

served by mid-afternoon broadcasts of rugby test matches. TVNZ declined to uphold

the complaints.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Lord confined his complaint to

the broadcast, and replay, of one incident. The player's use of the language at the

time was not, Mr Lord argued, part of the game being televised. He continued to argue

that, given the delayed nature of the broadcast, TVNZ had breached the standards by

not eliminating the use of the offensive language and gestures.

The Authority accepts that the footage complained of might be a cause for concern to

some viewers, but notes that both the language and the gestures were unclear in

presentation, difficult to hear, and moreover were incidental to the focus of the

broadcast. While the Authority considers the use of the language was understandable

in its context, it notes that it drew forth an appropriately critical comment from the

commentators. With respect to the complaint under G12, the Authority believes that

in reference to children the language and gestures complained of were so fleeting and

barely discernible as to be unobjectionable. Accordingly, it declines to uphold the

complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
15 December 1997

Appendix

Mr Lord's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 20 August 1997

Peter Lord of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Limited that,

during a telecast of the rugby test between New Zealand and Australia beginning at

about 3.00pm on 16 August 1997, obscenities in the form of unacceptable language

and gestures by the test players were broadcast and repeated in a replay. He asked

whether the broadcast was delayed and, if so, why the offending portions were not

edited out. He also questioned the reason for replays and close-ups of such incidents,

and asked whether the broadcaster made sporting organisations aware of its

broadcasting standards. He maintained that adherence to those standards was integral

to its broadcasting of sport.

Mr Lord asked whether a violation of broadcasting practice codes had occurred in the

broadcaster's failure to ensure "decency and taste in language" in sporting

programmes, "respect [for] the principles and laws which sustain our society" by

broadcasting offensive language which could be cause for arrest, and failure to be

mindful of the effect of both the programme content and violence in verbal form on

children. He also contended that the screening breached two standards in the

approved code of broadcasting practice, both relating to classifications.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 12 September 1997

TVNZ responded initially by noting that a complaint about the standard of language

used on sports fields should result more appropriately in recourse to sports

administrators, that swearing on sports fields was widespread and that adherence to

standards should be tempered by context. It further noted that one of the incidents

complained of (and the sole subject of complaint to the Authority) was not heard by

the television audience, and the player's reaction was condemned by the

commentators.

TVNZ confirmed that the broadcast was "slightly" delayed, but maintained that there

was no reason to edit out the sequences which "reflected the reality of what went on

during the test match". The close-ups of the player's reaction, it added, were relevant.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G2, G5, G8, and G12 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. There was nothing in the telecast, it

considered, which went beyond currently accepted norms of decency and taste in the

context of a trans-Tasman rugby match. It noted that the strongest word heard by the

audience was "bullshit", the use of which was criticised by its own commentary team,

and was later publicly apologised for by the offending player.

TVNZ also considered the complaint under standard G5 of the Code, and considered

that televising "the reality of what goes on during a rugby test match" was not a

failure to show respect for the law, for the player's swearing could only be a matter

for arrest if a complaint was laid.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standard G8 of the Code and said that it was

surprising that the complainant should suggest that coverage of a major rugby test

match should be considered as other than under a "G" classification. It noted that the

game is supported by many schools, crowds at test matches comprised large numbers

of school parties and young audiences were not unaware of swearing on the sports

field.

In regard to standard G12 of the Code, the broadcaster responded that the interests of

both children and adults were served by the broadcast of the rugby test match during

the afternoon.

Mr Lord's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 1 October 1997

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

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

In his referral, Mr Lord confined his complaint to the broadcast, and replay, of an

incident during the rugby test match involving one only of the players. Of that

incident, he asserted that the player's language and reactions were never intended to be

part of the game and thus their broadcast should be restricted to suitable times and

classifications. He commented:

Understanding of the game, to me and I'm sure, many others, is not king. That

kind of close analysis can be done of sports broadcasts at suitable evening times

when the diehards will watch and not during "G" time-bands.

Mr Lord also commented that the broadcaster's failure to eliminate one or two

offensive incidents, by its use of a delayed telecast, amounted to a disregard of its

obligations under the Code. He further noted a failure by the broadcaster to abide by

the restrictions imposed upon it by broadcasting the programme in a time-band

deemed appropriate for general viewing.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 10 October 1997

TVNZ advised that it had nothing further to add.