BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

All BSA's decisions on complaints 1990-present

Lennon and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1998-011

Members
  • S R Maling (Chair)
  • J Withers
  • L M Loates
  • R McLeod
Dated
Complainant
  • Yvonne Lennon
Number
1998-011
Programme
McPhail and Gadsby
Channel/Station
TVNZ 1


Summary

An item in an episode of McPhail and Gadsby depicted a naval officer groping the

breasts of a woman cadet while instructing male cadets on what constituted sexual

harassment. The episode was broadcast on TV One on Tuesday 28 October 1997

between 8.00–8.30pm.

Ms Lennon complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the

item was a breach of decency and good taste. She alleged that it would have disturbed

and alarmed children watching at that time. The complainant asserted that the item

depicted graphic and gratuitous violence in showing sexual harassment of a woman

rendered powerless to protest by a male in command of her by means of his rank.

TVNZ responded that the item was topical and lampooned official inaction over

complaints of sexual harassment aboard a naval frigate during a recent tour of duty.

The broadcaster asserted that the satire was directed at the naval hierarchy, and that it

emphasised that sexual harassment was not acceptable.

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response, Ms Lennon referred her complaint to the

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

For the reasons given below, a majority of 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.

A naval officer groping the breasts of a woman cadet while instructing male cadets on

what constituted sexual harassment was featured in an episode of McPhail and

Gadsby on 28 October 1997.

The complainant asserted that the item was in breach of currently accepted norms of

decency and good taste. She also complained that it would have disturbed and alarmed

children watching at the time. Finally, she contended, in so portraying the sexual

harassment of a woman rendered powerless to protest by a male in command of her

by means of his rank, the item depicted graphic and gratuitous violence.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standards. The first requires

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.

In denying that the presentation of the sketch strayed outside the bounds of taste and

decency, TVNZ noted that the item highlighted a current issue of sexual harassment.

The broadcaster explained that the McPhail and Gadsby series was topical and

satirical. It contended that the primary function of satire was to highlight unfair,

unreasonable, biased and unacceptable comments and actions. Here, TVNZ claimed,

the item lampooned a recent event – the complaint of a woman sailor of sexual

harassment aboard a New Zealand Navy frigate on a tour of duty and the inaction of

naval authorities until the complaint was made public. That inaction, and the

unacceptability of sexual harassment, was the very point of the satirical sketch,

TVNZ wrote.

The second standard provides:

V16  roadcasters must be mindful of the effect any programme, including

trailers, may have on children during their generally accepted viewing periods,

usually up to 8.30 pm, and avoid screening material which could

unnecessarily disturb or alarm children.


In rejecting the complaint under this standard, TVNZ contended that context had to be

taken into account. Children, it felt, generally had some idea of the news stories of the

week, and older children routinely discussed news events as part of their study.

The broadcaster also noted that the programme was rated "PGR". Children watching

the programme in the company of a caregiver would have the opportunity to have

parents endorse the skit's message that sexual harassment was not acceptable.

The third standard requires:

V17  Scenes and themes dealing with disturbing social and domestic

or sequences in which people – especially children – or animals may be 

humiliated or badly treated, should be handled with great care and

sensitivity. All gratuitous material of this nature must be avoided

and any scenes which are shown must pass the test of relevancy

within the context of the programme. If thought likely to disturb

children, the programme should be scheduled later in the evening.


Rejecting the complaint that the sketch was in breach of this standard, TVNZ argued

that the item did not represent a disturbing social theme but was an attack on a

disturbing social theme; namely apparent Navy inaction when dealing with sexual

harassment.

When referring the complaint to the Authority, Ms Lennon stated that the sketch

showed an ignorant chauvinist groping a woman's breasts and the spectacle, in the

context of satire whose main purpose was to amuse, was not funny. She felt that,

when sensitive issues were the subject of satire, some degree of subtlety and wit came

into play in order to provide the humour. Both of those were sadly lacking. What

made the groping depicted in the sketch offensive, Ms Lennon wrote, was that it was

trying to be funny.

The complainant asked:

If the McPhail and Gadsby programme produced a satirical sketch

about another sensitive and topical issue – the Peter Ellis case – would

the sketch include a scene showing a "paedophilic childcare worker"

with his hand groping up a child's skirt? I think not.

In response, TVNZ argued that the purpose of satire was to subject to public mockery

those whose attitudes or actions were either out of step with their station in life or

with public expectations of them. It denied Ms Lennon's view that the sketch dealt

with the sexual harassment of a woman rendered powerless to protest by a male in

command of her by means of his rank. Rather, the broadcaster argued, the skit

lampooned that idea and ridiculed the individual who might have thought that sexual

harassment was acceptable.

TVNZ asserted that the object of the satire was not the woman at the centre of the

sexual harassment; it was the Navy officer who was the object.

In a final comment, Ms Lennon criticised the broadcaster for failing, throughout the

course of its dealings with her complaint, to justify or even mention the one thing to

which she objected in the sketch – what she called gratuitous groping.

The Authority is divided in its determination of the complaint. A majority declines to

uphold the complaint and finds that the sketch, although perhaps not funny in the

eyes of some viewers, did have a serious intent. In the majority's opinion, the item did

fall within the definition and purpose of satire. It presented a lampooning or humorous

look at an institution [the Navy] made hidebound by its failure to look at the

complaints of sexual harassment which had been made, the majority decides, and, in

the context of those complaints, the situation made extraordinary by the Navy's failure

to act.

The majority appreciates that the centrepiece of the sketch – the "gratuitous groping"

of the woman sailor's breasts – may not have entirely succeeded in being humorous,

and came close to the threshold of a breach of the good taste and decency standard.

However, in the majority's view, while the attempt at humour may have failed, the

satirical intention was evident. The majority considers that satire is often of its very

nature objectionable and tasteless, but its legitimate intention to highlight social abuses

may place it in a special category of humour, granting more licence than might be

acceptable otherwise. In that context, the satire, to be effective, required some

portrayal of the conduct under scrutiny. Perhaps this could have been handled in a

more sensitive manner, but the majority is not persuaded that there was a breach of the

standard.

In reaching this conclusion, the majority emphasises the time at which the programme

screened, and its PGR rating, which indicated some content would be likely to be of an

adult nature.

A minority of the Authority disagrees with the above reasoning. It is of the view that

the portrayal at the centrepiece of the sketch was unsuccessfully depicted. While the

broadcaster argued that the satirical context presented the Navy in a bad light, the

minority believes that to take that view may be to misread the audience's perception

of the effect of the incident. Moreover, it considers that the depiction exceeded

currently accepted norms of decency and taste.

In considering the intent or purpose of satire and its application to the issue at the

centre of this complaint, the minority strongly maintains that satire does not

automatically allow issues of taste to be blithely ignored. If the threshold is crossed

then a breach occurs. Here the minority believes the threshold was crossed and

accordingly it upholds the complaint under G2 only.

 

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold

the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

 

Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 February 1998

Appendix


Ms Lennon's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – 4 November 1997

Yvonne Lennon of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Limited about

an item in an episode of the series McPhail and Gadsby, broadcast on TV One on

Tuesday 28 October 1997 between 8.00–8.30pm.

The item, she wrote, breached standards G2, V16 and V17 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The item to which Ms Lennon objected depicted a naval officer

groping the breasts of a woman cadet while instructing a group of male naval cadets

about what constituted sexual harassment. The complainant felt that the depiction of a

young female naval cadet being sexually assaulted by her male superior officer in the

context of a humorous sketch "goes against currently accepted norms of decency and

good taste".

Ms Lennon was also concerned that "this graphic depiction of sexual assault" was

screened at a time when children were generally viewing and they could have been

disturbed and alarmed.

Writing that the scene "dealt with a disturbing social theme - sexual harassment of a

female rendered powerless to protest, by a male in command of her by means of his

rank in the Navy", Ms Lennon contended that the:

violence depicted was graphic and gratuitous in that the female was

humiliated by being groped in front of a group of young male cadets:

in effect, without her consent, her breasts were used as teaching aids.


TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 17 November 1997

TVNZ responded initially by noting that the content of the episode complained of,

like other episodes in the series:

is topical and satirical. The intention is to lampoon people, and the

events and politics in which they are involved and which are

currently matters of public interest.


TVNZ stated that the primary function of satire was to highlight unfair, unreasonable,

biased, unacceptable and plain silly comments and actions. Noting that the particular

item lampooned a recent event – the complaint of a woman sailor of sexual harassment

aboard a New Zealand Navy frigate on a tour of duty and the inaction of naval

authorities until the complaint was made public – TVNZ contended that the very

point of the satire was to highlight concern at the Navy's initial lack of response and

to emphasise that sexual harassment was not acceptable.

The broadcaster concluded that:

the target of the satire was not the victim of the harassment; it was

the Navy's hierarchy and the men within that hierarchy.


With respect to standard G2, the broadcaster felt unable to conclude that the

presentation of the item, highlighting a current issue involving sexual harassment,

strayed outside the bounds of taste and decency.

TVNZ contended that standard V16 was not infringed, for context had to be taken

into account and children generally had some idea of the news stories of the week. It

noted that many older children routinely discussed news events as part of their study.

Further, the broadcaster asserted, the programme was rated "PGR". Children watching

in the company of a caregiver would have the opportunity to have parents endorse the

skit's message that sexual harassment was not acceptable.

Referring to standard V17, the broadcaster wrote that the sketch did not represent a

disturbing social theme but was an attack on a disturbing social theme; namely

apparent Navy inaction when dealing with sexual harassment.

Ms Lennon's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 25 November
1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Ms Lennon referred her complaint to the

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

In her referral, Ms Lennon stated that she was aware of the nature and purpose of

satire and that when sensitive issues were the subject of satire, some degree of

subtlety and wit came into play in order to provide the humour. Both of these, she

felt, were sadly lacking from the sketch which was the subject of complaint.

The sketch, the complainant wrote, showed an ignorant chauvinist groping a woman's

breasts and the spectacle, in the context of satire whose main purpose was to amuse,

was not funny. That it was trying to be funny was what made it offensive. Ms

Lennon acknowledged:

that the subject of the satire was the Navy which failed to address the

complaint of a woman who was sexually harassed. However, in

attempting to lampoon the Navy, [the broadcaster] subjected that

woman to a second harassment, on public television, and as the object

of a joke.


While I have no problem with the subject matter being satirised, I feel

that showing a graphic representation of an actual assault is not

acceptable television in the context of a satire, and especially not in a

time slot when children are likely to be viewing.

[She continued] If the McPhail and Gadsby programme produced a

satirical sketch about another sensitive and topical issue – the Peter

Ellis case – would the sketch include a scene showing a "paedophilic

childcare worker" with his hand groping up a child's skirt? I think not.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 3 December 1997

TVNZ responded that the purpose of satire was to subject to public mockery those

whose attitudes or actions were out of step with their station in life or with public

expectations of them. It denied the complainant's view that the scenes depicted in the

skit dealt with the sexual harassment of a woman rendered powerless by a

commanding male. TVNZ reiterated its view that it lampooned that idea and ridiculed

the individual who might have thought sexual harassment acceptable.

Commenting on Ms Lennon's view that the object of satire was to amuse, the

broadcaster quoted from a recent issue of History Today that:

in the right circumstances [satire] can be sharp and subversive.

Collective laughter against the powerful is a pointed weapon

that can be wielded spontaneously and informally.


TVNZ denied that the prime objective of the skit was "trying to be funny". It

emphasised that the object of the satire was not the woman at the centre of the sexual

harassment but the Navy officer.

Ms Lennon's Final Comment – 12 December 1997

The complainant submitted that, in its responses, the broadcaster had neither justified

nor mentioned the "one thing" which she had objected to in the sketch - the gratuitous

groping.

Rejecting TVNZ's claim that the item contained "sharp subversive satire", Ms

Lennon wrote:

I would have enjoyed seeing a "pointed weapon wielded against the

chauvinistic oaf who represented the Navy". I did not enjoy seeing

that chauvinistic oaf groping a woman's breasts. Mock the abusers,

please. Do it well and make us laugh, but keep your oafish hands

off the victims.